Maybe The Answer To The $200 Million Movie Question Is To Not Focus On $200 Million Movies?
from the what-happens-when-you-get-formulaic dept
For almost a decade, we've been dealing with variations on the question an executive from NBC Universal once asked me during a panel discussion about copyright: "But how will we keep being able to make $200 million movies?" As we've explained over and over in the years since, that's a ridiculous question. Would anyone in the tech industry ever ask "but how will we continue to make our $5,000 computers?" Of course not, because the focus is on making something profitable that's good and serves a need. Focusing on the cost is exactly the wrong way to go about things. That doesn't mean that no movies should cost $200 million. If you can come up with a movie that can make more than that in response, then sure. But Hollywood seems built not around figuring out how to make something profitable, but by following a formula. And part of that formula is "every summer we release some big budget, action-packed ~$200 million films that we call blockbusters" and that's the focus.Except, when you follow a formula that says "we do this because this is what we do" rather than "how can we create something that people will like and will bring in more money than we spend?" (Yes, I recognize this is simplifying things, like skipping over Hollywood accounting, where films are designed to "lose money" even as the studios make money on them).
Of course, some filmmakers long ago realized how problematic this is. George Lucas declared the death of the $200 million movie back in 2006 and just recently Steven Spielberg joined Lucas in making similar remarks. Spielberg noted:
"That's the big danger, and there's eventually going to be an implosion – or a big meltdown," Spielberg said. "There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm."And it may already be happening. The NY Times is noting that six big budget "blockbuster" movies in a row are looking like complete flops:
With extremely weak domestic ticket sales over the weekend for “R.I.P.D.” and “Turbo,” Hollywood has now sustained six big-budget duds since May 1, the start of the film industry’s high-stakes summer season. The other failing movies have been “After Earth,” “White House Down,” “Pacific Rim” and “The Lone Ranger.”Each of those films was well over $100 million to make, with a few breaking that magical $200 million. A big part of the problem? These movies are all just formulaic retreads of the past -- playing on the stupid idea that "well, we need a $200 million movie, so how do we make one?"
Studios have also tried to sell most of these as “original,” which in Hollywood-speak means not a sequel or a remake. In reality, movie companies have largely just reassembled familiar parts. “Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.” “The Lone Ranger” was “Pirates of the Caribbean” in Old West drag. “R.I.P.D.” was “Men in Black” lite.Meanwhile, the movies that are doing well are the lower budget films.
Moviegoers are pushing back. The No. 1 movie in North America over the weekend was “The Conjuring,” a period haunted house film that cost Warner Brothers $20 million to make and received stellar reviews. It took in $41.5 million, according to box office estimates compiled by Hollywood.com.Of course, Hollywood folks will point out that you never really know how a movie is going to do, and it's something of a crapshoot. Indeed, but in that case aren't you better off testing your luck with 10 $20 million movies rather than dumping $200 million all into one boring retread?
Again, the idea is not that there should never be $200 million movies -- but it's long past the time that Hollywood focused on "how to make $200 million movies" which leads to an awful lot of formulaic stuff that the public appears to be sick of watching. Instead, it's time to focus on how to make good profitable movies. That usually doesn't involve following a formula, but rather finding quality content, and figuring out how to make it efficiently, not how to keep ratcheting up the budget just to fit it into some pigeonhole about what a "summer blockbuster" has to look like.
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
Filed Under: $200 million, blockbusters, flops, hollywood, movies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Mother of God...
Boom. Death Star shot....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mother of God...
Great minds and all that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mother of God...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mother of God...
http://www.bugmartini.com/comics/mother-of-god/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mother of God...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJnqT3qqEDc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mother of God...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mother of God...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mother of God...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mother of God...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the Turbo trailer got a resounding thud in the preview I went to. People don't like snails. You can't make everything cute and fuzzy just because you try. And a snail racing in the Indy 500? That just doesn't make any sense. Why would I go see such nonsense?
And Planes will be the next big budget movie to join this list, because that trailer looked awful as well.
The Wolverine looks good. Hopefully they don't screw up the ending this time (like X3 and X-Men Origins: Wolverine).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's possible to make excellent big budget movies -- I've seen them! However, as a rule of thumb the quality of a movie tends to be inversely proportional to how much it cost to make.
You can also use a variant of the "adjective rule" (the more adjectives used in a product description, the crappier the product) for movies: the more big-name stars in it, the better the odds that it sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
R.I.P.D. however... I saw one look at the trailer of that and immediately thought, 'eh, it looks okay, but I've already seen MIB, so I'll pass'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He didn't, he said:
"wasn't a rehash, was directed well, and didn't actively mock the fans(Hello Transformers...)"
None of this implies anything about the financial success, though if it had then these could be pointed at as being the problems. It may have been financially successful, but the Transformers series has been cynical, with each sequel rehashing the previous, has often come under fire for its directorial style that leaves many action sequences incomprehensible and has alienated fans of the source material. A profit doesn't change any of this.
Movies like The Avengers remind people that blockbusters don't have to be soulless time fillers populated by idiots and cyphers, so it would be interesting to see how the next Transformers movie fares. I suspect not as well as the previous two, but we'll see if Bay manages to learn anything from either criticism of his previous work or from the successes of his competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Turbo The Snail < Sonic The Hedgehog
You know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
There are no profitable movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
Comparable is not the same as equal. I think everyone will agree with the comparison the Del Toro is a much better director than Bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
True, but Pacific Rim still had a definite "Angels vs Evas" feel to it. Only with less teenage angst, and more slapping monsters in the face with boats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
Basically giant robots beating the crap out of each other.
Like I said I've not seen the movie so maybe I've got it wrong and this is actually a well acted and directed film with a strong story.
From the trailers it appeared to me to be Battlefield Los Angeles meets the Transformers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
Plus a little bit of Independence Day.
In any case, everything is derivative of something else. Even "original" stories build off of ideas that came before. The question is: What does the new story add to the mix? And even if it doesn't add anything, but is entertaining nonetheless, why should it matter if it is derivative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
Also, you are in denial.. You have to look pretty hard at the robots to be able to tell they are new terrible looking giant robots instead of the same ones they used in transformers.. If they were trying to channel japanese manga, in that robot design, they didn't. They channeled the horrible version transformers from the michael bay movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
Moves like jaeger. Get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
I never claimed there was a universal standard as to what constitues "entertaining." Just that "derivative" and "entertaining" are not mutually exclusive categories. The fact that everything is derivative to some degree or another alone guarantees that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
Perhaps, but most people (like myself) have never heard of Evangelion, so it may also be a problem trying to explain something to a general audience, rather than a specific in-the-know subset.
I thought it looked like Transformers, but my ignorance of Evangelion makes that inevitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
Actually, I'd say if the movie isn't identical to transformers then the preview is pretty misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
Although you do look retarded if you're only capable of making comparisons to 2nd generation American knockoffs like the modern Transformers movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
There is a very real possibility that many of the robots in the movie are just re-worked Transformers designs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
Good news (for the studio) is that it's making money overseas and hasn't even opened in China or Japan yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
But, it's great that it's still doing well. Nearly $200 million internationally by the end of this week, I suspect it will close with most of its budget made back then do well on DVD/Blu once word of mouth let's people know it's a movie worth watching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
As to the core point, I agree. The focus should be on quality, not cost. Sometimes quality does come at a high price, but sometimes it does not (Let The Right One In was relatively cheap).
And their problem is they aren't making many really intersting movies. I liked Pacific Rim, but I have no interest in RIPD or The Lone Ranger or many of the others out this summer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "“Pacific Rim,” which featured giant robots, seemed to share DNA with “Transformers.”"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All people care about is the end result. What Hollywood should be pondering is how can they slash their budget and still achieve the same result. Basically, how to become more efficient.
Companies that actually produce things do this all the time. If they didn't, they wouldn't survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would prefer that Hollywood learn how to make better movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is 100% supported by the evidence of the movies that have been produced.
Also, it's not special to movies. In any business, it is very harmful to have too large of a budget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even though a lot of horror/sci-fi/action flicks from the 70's-80's were done on meager budgets, that was a large part of their allure. It forced producers and directors to be creative in order to come up with the desired special effects, not to mention giving make-up/costume artists, stop-motion and moving graphic animators (scanimation!) a chance to showcase their skills. It was always interesting to see how they created those effects. Nowadays, that style of film-making has all but gone by the wayside. Literally everything is done with ham-fisted, artificial CG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I still rememeber as a six-year-old being terrifed by the skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts. So when as an adult I had the opportunity to touch and handle one of the models, it was a definite nerdgasm for my inner six-year-old. Now, a whole generation will grow up never being able to really see, feel or otherwise experience their effects outside of the movies.
That being said, well-done CGI effects are still awesome and great progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is probably partly why they make so many movies that were meant to be rated "R", PG-13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But the kids movies were never meant to be the go-to action movies of the year. The Lone Ranger, White House Down and After Earth were marketed as the beginning of the summer box office blockbusters and they aren't pulling their weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cost of doing business?
Isn't this how it is with any business? How can anyone really know their product will succeed? Seems Hollywood things strict copyright enforcement somehow guarantees success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But focusing on making a profit is for the little people!
But that's... what little people do who can't demand the government pass new laws to protect their failed business models!
What's next, you'll tell us to adapt to the Internet?!? Are you out of your mind?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their philosophy is if they throw money at it, it will do what they want.
My mind is thoroughly boggled on the fact that they continue to think that this model is sustainable...as in if they keep pumping money into something, they'll sure see a nice fat return on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It'll probably top off at more than 200mil eventually. May cap out at 600mil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too bad there's no legal way to do so without going through the facemelting heat, buying an overpriced ticket, having very limited and obscenely expensive snack options, sitting through lectures and advertisements, and missing parts if I need a break for a piss, or from the uncomfortable chairs, or if someone brings their 2-year old and can't control them or politely leave the theater when they throw a tantrum.
I'd gladly pay a few bucks if I could download it and watch at my leisure at home. But since I can't... well, guess I'll torrent it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I recommend it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Google had a monthly subscription model like Netflix, or yearly like Amazon prime, I would look at that too.
Dear Hollywood,
If your movie isn't on one of these, I'm not going to watch it. I don't have time to watch all the stuff that is there already, so don't worry that I'll get bored waiting for your precious movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because from where I stante Grown Ups 2 made a sh*tload of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The theater experience is so terrible that I don't want to experience it anymore. Commercials shoved down my throat on my dime? Hey look to someone else to pay for that cause I'm not going.
Don't even count the cost of going to see a movie, it's outrageous and highway robbery.
I've reached the point I am totally turned off by the thought of going to a movie theater where they want to eyeball you in the dark, just in case you aren't watching the movie but doing something else. While I have never, ever, even thought of such actions, still I find that it is an extreme distraction.
Hollydud lost me long ago and I am not likely to return without major changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"But ... Piracy!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now all we need is for lower-budget movies to be a success
...Actually, I take that back. A big name studio getting its hooks into Slenderman would not bode well for the Internet community (especially those in the Creepypasta realm). They'd probably try to claim copyright over the character or some crazy b.s., even though Slenderman has an owner, and therefore is already copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
same for games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
same for games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: same for games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but so far still hasn't made a profit! in fact, it hasn't made enough money yet to even pay the crew, let alone the star cast!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interesting indies getting squeezed out?
"Midnight in Paris," "Moonrise Kingdom," "Safety Not Guaranteed," and the best movie I'd seen in a decade, "Beasts of the Southern Wild." All low-cost art-house-circuit films, but at least they got made.
This year, the art-house circuit doesn't seem to be offering much for me. Joss Whedon's Shakespeare movie and Pierce Brosnan's rom-com were decent, but no classics.
Not sure where the next good movies are coming from. I've been seeing stories that independent film financing has been tough to come by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: interesting indies getting squeezed out?
Overall, it depends what you're looking for though. A lot of indie films are appearing on streaming or home video services rather than cinema screens due to the studios' dominance of those screens. It's telling that even among the ones you mentioned, two of your favourites were by established directors, one was from a name star and one had serious Oscar buzz.
Smaller films don't get a look in quite often, hence the problem. The good movies are out there, you just might have to dig a bit deeper, or explore your DVD/streaming options rather than theatrical ones. Unless you really do have a good local arthouse cinema, in which case I'd say support then no matter what and you may run into some interesting surprises along the way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of formulas
I just read an article about that "formula".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then add in a screenplay formula and crank out hits
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder_s_screenw riting_book_save_the_cat.html
So, combine a formulaic script with empty CGI special effects and you get jaded audiences who won't see a movie.
Anyway, the point from above still stands: why spend $200 million on a movie to make a 20% profit when you can make another "Blair Witch Project" for $25,000 and make a 10,000% profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then add in a screenplay formula and crank out hits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Then add in a screenplay formula and crank out hits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Then add in a screenplay formula and crank out hits
Take this year as an example: for $200 million, you could have made (to a pick a few non-"blockbuster" titles at random) The Conjuring, The Heat, Mama, Warm Bodies and Gangster Squad. Add the production budgets of those movies together and you still have $25 million to play with on other projects or marketing (the budgets range from $3 to $60 million). But you have already got back $430 million domestic gross with plenty of time to go for many of their theatrical runs (according to box office mojo), even not counting international, home releases and licensing. Or, you could dump the whole thing into Jack The Giant Slayer ($195 million budget) and only make back $65 million...
There's definitely an appetite for movies at either end of the spectrum, but it's only the guys who dumped the whole $200 million on a single massive project that risk losing the lot in one go.
If you have $200 million to invest, there's many better ways to do it than going "hey, let's blow the lot on CGI and marketing and see what hits!". You don't have to make 3000 Blair Witches, but you don't have to spend the GDP of a small country on one single project either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf mike?
Now a Jeff Bridges vs Bill Murray movie... There is something I'd pay to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No mention about how "White House Down" appears to be a ripoff of "Olympus Has Fallen"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably because it's not. Hollywood has a habit of having 2 major releases with similar plots in development at the same time with different studios (Armageddon vs. Deep Impact, Mirror Mirror vs Snow White and the Huntsman, The Prestige vs. The Illusionist, etc.).
Both films were in production at the same time, Olympus just happened to beat its competitor to release.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't bother, they're liberals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why $200 million dollar movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]