The Death of the 'Hollywood' movie...

[Pixanaut]

Having spent some time as a visual effects artist in a previous career, I used to be front and centre every time a new ‘event movie’ hit the theatres. If I wasn’t there on the first day, I was most definitely there within the opening weekend. I wanted to see sixty-foot robots beat the crap outta each other, or the latest comic book made real for the screen, or the alien get its due, but each time I left the theatre, I found myself less and less impressed. I simply expect more out of these tentpole films for my $15 (and up) ticket price.

A number of things have happened over the last decade or so and in their seemingly conspiratorial nature they have caused the downfall of the truly enjoyable Hollywood blockbuster. Collectively, this perfect storm has brought the industry to its knees creatively while ironically, bringing in some of the highest returns in history. The relationship there is one that needs further explanation because as of right now, it seems like Hollywood has gotten the impression that there is a positive correlation between lack of story and big returns.

Budgets:
On some level, I blame my fellow Canadian James Cameron for the state of the industry. The man is a mad genius, exceptionally talented, and impressively driven. It was Jim who made the first $100million movie (True Lies) and the first $200million movie (Titanic). While some have estimated that Avatar cost upward of $500million, the final publicized budget was $237million. When you add in Avatar’s $150million marketing budget however, and the costs of developing the special 3D camera systems used on the shoot, the total cost to make the film does actually come close to that half a billion dollar mark. Sure, his movies make a gazillion dollars, but each time the budget bar is raised it brings with it a new standard of expectation within the industry, at the cost of rational investment and worse, the total evisceration of story. There was also a perception that the more money a movie costs to make, the better it must be. Obviously, recent films have made a mockery out of that assertion and the public at large seems to be catching on, despite this being a record year with three movies joining the $1billion+ worldwide box office club.

Big budget films are all.... (post continues here http://ajking.ca/blog/?p=29)





So, what do you guys think? The recent cancellations of big budget projects at Universal seems to be at least hints that the powers that be are being a little more critical at what they dump their money into.

 

[Elader Arkon]

I think 'Hollywood movies' are simply going through another transitional phase, one where special effects have pretty much hit their peak for realism and said special effects are getting cheaper by the day (ahh technology and efficiency), so more money can be thrown at overvalued actors who give halfway convincing acting, or say a couple lines in a just-above-cameo appearance so the movie's marketing department can market their big names (what, you think the extra money would be thrown at something like better writers? Let's be serious here.)


I think Marvel's plan with the Avengers is a fantastic thing, and following on the heels of Harry Potter might hopefully be seen as the way to go. Novels have been doing multi-book series for years now (and video games more or less as well), I can only hope the movie industry is starting to see the possibilities and begin telling multi-part epics rather than trying to condense everything into one piece.

 

[ursen]

Part of the topic was concerning 3D, I have a daughter who can't watch them because she only has one eye, and watching 3D only gives her a black screen. 3D has been over rated since it's early days, it is a pure marketing ploy. Some of the the great older films were 2D and filmed in a very limited setting with excellent actors. Lifeboat, 12 Angry Men, Rear Window to name just a few. I agree that Hollywood has gone way overboard on special spectaculars, and unfortunately we have spread this excess disease to other countries. At least Bollywood does it without massive CGI.

 

[Pixanaut]

Elader - I might agree with you that it is a phase, but I actually hope that it isn't just a phase. The reality is that these studios are putting the GDP of small countries into single movies, which to me seems really irresponsible. I agree that for event movies, all of them are packaged as at least three films dependent on the success of the first film, but I think the first film should have a smaller budget and have to prove itself before doing sequels. Right now, the big money is dumped on the first film of potential franchises, and therein lies the risk. With a more modest budget, the first film can be made, build it's audience, and based on its return on investment, THEN I say develop the sequels using the returns from the first film. Quite frankly, you shouldn't need $200 million to put a story on film anyway. Ten years ago, the pinnacle of visual effects was Jurassic Park III. Granted, not a great film, but the vfx were fantastic for the day and the film ran $93 million to make ($115 million adjusted for inflation). Will a new Jurassic Park cost double that? In ten years has the industry inflated it's costs to the point where a film budget has to be doubled in order to be equal in quality?

I'd definitely like to see more smaller films made with studio backing for a bunch of unknowns. That way, maybe something more original or engaging will get made.

ursen - I couldn't agree more. I know people who are 'stereo-blind'. That is interesting though, that your daughter sees only black. I'm not sure how the new 3D works (I know how the old colour separation method works), but I'm sure it frustrates those who can't see the 3D effect, when some people rave about it. I'm just glad that there is an old theatre near me that doesn't do 3D at all... sadly, as time goes on, the selection of films that they're getting seems to be growing ever more limited.

 

[Elader Arkon]

I'd definitely like to see more smaller films made with studio backing for a bunch of unknowns. That way, maybe something more original or engaging will get made.

Therein lies the problem. Studios don't want a ton of small films coming out, because it saturates a market that is already close to full (theaters only have so many screens and people only see so many movies a year), and they know that for every runaway success there are going to be many dozens of films that barely make or break even and a few that won't even get that far. Big tent pole films work the way they do right now because a studio will throw almost everything they've got into one or two movies that are considered 'safe bets'. Yes these 'safe bets' are crazy expensive, but with great risks comes greater rewards (and risks they still are, just look at Green Lantern). It's all a matter of getting a larger return on the investment, Hollywood is a business no matter how much anyone complains.

However, Hollywood has adjusted for small budgets and artistic originality in its own way with the rise of independent/foreign films and film studios. The best of these films usually get picked up by a large company and given a limited theatrical or DVD release. This is also a safe method for making a little extra money as well as finding potential new directors, actors, etc. to add to the grinding mill. If you want originality and small budgets, best start looking there.

 

[Pixanaut]

True. I realize that there is a finite number of theatre screens, which is an issue.

Perhaps the studios can still do a series of films branded as 'sub-$30m movies' and release them differently. Say that a theatre/multiplex has 8 screens, why not make one of those screens a revolving digital theatre on a two week rotation? That way, all of these cheaper films can have a two week theatre run, and then back that up by VOD or direct download at home?

I don't know... maybe that won't work. I just really want to see a market open up where the studios aren't over-invested in the films to the point of having their creative hands tied due to the ballooned budgets.

Movies like 'Bad Teacher' are (crap but) made for $20 million, and make over $200 million back. That's a pretty nice return on investment. I want to see that model applied to better content; more like 'The Blind Side' ($29m to make, $309m return) and 'The Help' ($25m to make, $96m return so far).

The Blind Side $29m
The Help + $25m
=$54m/2 = $27m average cost to make

$309m
+$160m($96m so far, $160 is projection)
= $469/2 = $234.5m average return

Avatar cost $237m/$27m average = 8.7
You could make 8.7 films like those two movies for the cost of one Avatar.

Your expected returns would be:
8.7 x $234.5m = $2.04 billion


Of course, Avatar made $2.7 billion, but the true cost of Avatar was over $237m because of the camera development and the $150m marketing budget. When you factor those in, using a marketing budget of $100m (because you're never going to escape marketing costs, so the $50m allowance is to even the playing field between Avatar and those other films), then the ROI has got to be pretty close to even BUT the studio is spreading their risk over 8.7 films, rather than just one.

But you are correct. Limited screens is limited means. Until the studios can deliver films straight to my flatscreen, and still make their 'ticket sales' somehow, I can't see a way out of the current situation of big films and big budgets with crap stories... with the odd good film getting its chance.


PS - And if you still want some 'whiz-bang' in your movies, I offer these to prove that it can be done:
'Super 8' made $244m on a $50m budget (the budget didn't need to be this high - if it wasn't a period movie, it would have been a lower budget)
'District 9' made $210m on a $30m budget
'Cloverfield' made $170m on a $25m budget

Fun fact: Adjusted for inflation, the original Star Wars film cost $39m and Alien would have cost $32.6m

In my opinion, lower budgets breed more creativity when doing vfx heavy films.

 

[Elader Arkon]

True. I realize that there is a finite number of theatre screens, which is an issue.

Perhaps the studios can still do a series of films branded as 'sub-$30m movies' and release them differently. Say that a theatre/multiplex has 8 screens, why not make one of those screens a revolving digital theatre on a two week rotation? That way, all of these cheaper films can have a two week theatre run, and then back that up by VOD or direct download at home?

I don't know... maybe that won't work. I just really want to see a market open up where the studios aren't over-invested in the films to the point of having their creative hands tied due to the ballooned budgets.

The problem then becomes the theaters themselves. Theaters make almost no money at all the first couple of weeks in a film's run (thus the reason the concessions are so expensive) and they would completely revolt if they could only slow any movie (no matter how low budget) for two weeks at a time.

I think that in terms of story (which is what I am understanding your main point of contention is with the way things are done currently) the future is serialization or enterprise cable tv. It takes a ton of work to make a movie tell a story in only an hour and a half, usually when things get cut to make the movie that short, it is all the "little stuff" like story elements. Serializing is really what marvel is doing with all the lead in to the avengers. I also say cable tv because as a whole they are more likely to take long term risks that movie studios wont/can't touch (while I will probably never recommend a show from hbo on this forum, they are a good example of risk takers). The latest Doctor Who seasons are a good example of long term storytelling done right.

Anyway typing this out on my phone is getting annoying so I'll just end the post at this point.

 

[Pixanaut]

Yes, you are right. And that's definitely a contributing factor to the true storytellers of Hollywood migrating to cable.