Got $50 Million?
That’s too bad because, according to a boring business report in Variety, it cost $49.2 million on average for one of the studios’ specialty divisions to crank out a movie in 2007. That’s a 60% increase over 2006. Meanwhile, marketing jumped 44% to $25.7 million.
The article doesn’t say what the average studio picture cost (and it’s doubtful the studios would even admit it), so it’s difficult to gauge how much more like their parent companies the specialty divisions are really becoming, but it seems clear that ’specialty’ is increasingly just a marketing label.
I take it as fact that the more expensive a movie is, the less likely it is to be interesting. There are expensive exceptions of course, but in general the need to appeal to a mass audience tends to sap a project of originality. It rubs all the interesting edges off. There is too much at stake and the urge to pander all too often overcomes the need to challenge.
Yes, there are still plenty of truly low budget movies being made, but I worry that the specialty films increasingly suck the air out of the indie room, tantalizing with indie subject matter, but ultimately turning out to be more of the same. Even the Independent Spirit Awards were crowded with mini-majors. The big winner, Juno, was brought to you by Fox Searchlight. Though Wikipedia lists the Juno budget as a minuscule $6.5 million, I wonder how much Fox Searchlight spent on marketing. How can true independents compete with that?
So where can people go to find real indies? The Internet, of course. Another interesting tidbit in the Variety article is that 73% of moviegoers use the Internet to decide what to see. While it’s true that Yahoo Movies or Moviefone or even Rotten Tomatoes aren’t exactly cutting edge, the information is out there if you know where to look. IndieWIRE for example is a pretty good place to start. SpoutBlog does a good job as well. I’ve said before I’d like a better mix of indie and popular at LiC and I’m still working towards that, recent reviews of Semi-Pro and Definitely, Maybe notwithstanding.
There were more Variety box office factoids, but that’s their concern not mine. If you must know total domestic box office and the number of movies made between $200 million and $300 million in 2007, by all means, click away.
Filed under: Analysis, Opinion
Related Posts: - A Film Festival on a Couch in Your Underwear
- ‘Once’ a Nominee, Always a Nominee
- Fahrenheit 9/12
- Lights Out at Warner Specialty Units
- Cronenberg - Salon Interview
Well…………gone are the days alas, of Francis Ford Coppola’s DEMNTIA 13 and George Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Making movies today has reached gargantuen finantial levels, beyond the wildest prognostications of yesterday. You wonder if there ever will be a ceiling to this insanity.
As far as LIC covering movies like SEMI-PRO and DEFINITELY MAYBE, it is well understood and respected that the full range of cinema must (and should) extend to the multiplex to get a full range of what is out there currently. Having said that, I don’t envy you in this regard, Craig, and I admire your civility about it–you could be far more irate in your writings
“I take it as fact that the more expensive a movie is, the less likely it is to be interesting.”
Say goodbye to your opportunity to interview James Cameron when his next film comes out in late 2012.
(Yes, I know it’s currently scheduled for December 18, 2009 but it’s been pushed back so many times one has to wonder if it’s really going to stick to that date.)
This is that yearly Variety review about how the average movie’s production and marketing budgets continue to be inflated year after year. I’m always amazed at how much the average Hollywood movie budget jumps every year.
Of course, the ironic thing about these articles is fewer and fewer films are made for that “average” budget. The majority of films these days seem to be made on budgets that exceed 100 million dollars and are less than than 30 million. It’s the “tweener” film, in-between the “big” tentpole films and the “small” art-house fare, that are being slowly but surely squeezed, like a virtual “middle class” of movies.
Thank you Sam, I do believe a mix is good for you. Health food and junk food in moderation. I’d like to bump up the health food in 2008 a little though.
I take it for granted that budgets will inflate year in and year out. Frankly, I don’t much care if Transformers 2 costs $500 million, but it’s the tweeners Alexander mentions I worry about and this part of the article I pulled out seems to address.
(crossing “Interview James Cameron” off of Bucket List)
“Well…………gone are the days alas, of Francis Ford Coppola’s DEMNTIA 13 and George Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. ”
You know Sam, I’m not so sure they are. But is less likely that these movies will find a large audience in theaters, more likely that genre pictures will find audiences on DVD and cable via review sites like Twitch, CHUD, or AICN which cater to genre audiences.
Movies like The Signal or Teeth are still getting made and finding audiences, with small budgets and no name talent involved in front of or behind the lens. Heck, some of them make money.
More likely is that gone are the days of a Roger Corman, who could churn out B-movie fare, get it into theaters across the country, and cultivate the careers of the great directors of tomorrow. Theaters are now crammed to the gills with movies and there’s literally no room for B-movies anymore and the appeal of those films has not blossomed into a vital Direct to DVD market.
But I agree with Craig that more “specialty” fare is not good for the indie market or for films in general. While I like the idea behind specialty divisions, they seem to fly in the face of traditional indie filmmaking. Even if a movie is only picked up for distribution by a “specialty” division yet shot and produced entirely on independent financing, the power of said distribution deal is enough to potentially influence the manner and nature of the indie process.
I do see your point there Joel.
Add to that Joel, these specialty films crowding out the true indies at film festivals.
They’re attention hogs with their name stars and whatnot.
In a way they’re kind of dangerous, because they lull regular people into believing they’re being smart movie goers when a whole world of great stuff is getting ignored.
And the film festivals is where most of them are fighting for distribution deals too. Your indie movie is more likely to get the deal if it has the star power attached to it, but as we’ve seen with Delirious and Interview in 2007, having stars or known directors attached alone doesn’t equal box office…or distribution.
..and we circle back to my interest in having LiC be a touch more indie-centric. Of course for it to matter, people have to come here. Hopefully I can find a balance where people are lured by mainstream stuff and then I beat them senseless with an indie stick.
There are a few directors, though, who consistently make “cheap” films (relatively, of course), and it allows them to retain a bit of artistic freedom. I’m thinking of Cronenberg, for instance, but also Woody Allen (he has mixed results, and trouble getting financing, but he doesn’t use millions), and even the Coen brothers. So I think it’s still do-able to be in between… and that it yields some of the most interesting movies.
Very doable, but it’s incumbent upon all of us ot shine the light on these movies as best we can.