As the author says, he can't blame Universal or any company for making safe choices. And, since we are recovering from the worst economic slump since the Great Depression of the 1930's, we would be fools not to take the lessons to heart - namely, don't take great risks.

The problem, as he said, is that any industry or company that doesn't take great risks will stagnate or even go under. But, as I said, since Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns have gone down, what other choice is there?

Well, to be fair, those companies went down because massive fraud on their part ran them rightfully into the ground (unfortunately taking a lot more people with them.)

Arguably, it was Titanic that began this trend toward MASSIVE budgets which demand massive marketing costs and greater financial risks. Sticking with more projects at more modest costs would spread the work out for everyone and diffuse the risk. But these massive tent-pole movies aren't really good for anyone in the long run. Look at what Cleopatra did to Fox.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

I've been wondering if there's a market gap for mid-level movies which cost less and make less, but are proportionally more lucrative. For example, Titanic may cost $100 million and make $10 million, but, say, Karate Kid the Remake may cost $40 million and make $9 million, which make the Kid a better investment.

I started a thread on this, but I've got no info so far. That said, I don't have $40 million to spare, so the point is moot for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul

I've been wondering if there's a market gap for mid-level movies which cost less and make less, but are proportionally more lucrative. For example, Titanic may cost $100 million and make $10 million, but, say, Karate Kid the Remake may cost $40 million and make $9 million, which make the Kid a better investment.

I started a thread on this, but I've got no info so far. That said, I don't have $40 million to spare, so the point is moot for me.

---

Those kinds of decisions are made on occasion for very specific audiences. For instance, the Britney Spears movie CROSSROADS was made for something in the neighborhood of $5 million, mostly because the studio already knew who would go and who wouldn't and knew that those numbers weren't likely to change no matter how much or how little the movie was made for. So, they found the minimum it would take to shoot that story and the rest is profit.

The problem with super huge budget movies is that when such large amounts are risked, it automatically creates an environment where potential risks are mitigated as much as possible. The stories are taken from existing works (books, games, theme park rides), actors are chosen from the A list, a Director is chosen who has a track record, the crew is chosen who has experience.... of course all of THOSE things cost more money so that drives the price of the project up even more which demands even more "caution" to be taken by the studio and/or Producers.

It's a gamble that sometimes pays off if all the right elements are used wisely. Something like Pirates of the Caribbean or Harry Potter are great examples of a studio committing to telling a great story in a big way instead of cheaping out... and they've won big. But it doesn't always work out so there are large budget movies that tank badly for one reason or another. But if the guy who greenlights the movie that bombed can point to the known elements ("it was based on a hit book!" "It has Tom Cruise in it!""James Cameron directed!"), then that studio executive gets to keep his job, at least for a while. If he greenlights an expensive movie that does NOT have enough known elements to mitigate the perceived risk, then he'll be looking for a new job come Monday.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com

Gosh I would say massive budgets began with Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz. Actually the Wizard got panned as just a kids movie.

Its is a gamble. No one knows what would work and what wouldn't. When they were promoting Titanic I thought 'what a waste that movie is' and little did I know how much money it would bring in.

I think the studios start out by paying too much money to the actors (I know many will argue that its the big names that bring in the audience). They are in the hole before they even open the doors.

I haven't seen a movie in a theatre for years. Most come and go and are completely forgotten about.

Mars needs Mom has apparently tanked, so ... some Disney executive(s) will be looking for work.