Too expensive nowadays?

Started by kotte, January 02, 2004, 06:49:26 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

(kelvin)

#15
January 09, 2004, 11:34:43 AM
I can only say: cinema is a luxury. We don't build cathedrals anymore (a pity, I adore them), so we use our surplus of money to create films.

An expensive film can also be worth its money: 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, Matrix, to some degree. But a big budget is certainly not conditional for a great film, is it? I'd say this is quite obvious.

SoNowThen

#16
January 09, 2004, 11:59:44 AM
I didn't read everything else in this thread, but I'd like to reply to the original question:

I'd like to make mid-level cheap films (under $20 mill, over $5 mill). And every year or two, I'd also like to make a no-budget thing, just to fuck around, try things, stay fresh, and not have to answer to anybody on it. And I'd like more than anything (if I prove to make some bucks on the mid-level stuff), to get to do a few HUGE budget movies. I have a couple strange epics in my head...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

82

#17
January 09, 2004, 02:57:14 PM
Quote from: eward
Quote from: ©brad
Quote from: godardianI think it depends less on the money than what your definition of scale is. Magnolia cost $30 million, Gladiator much more than that, but I can assure you I think of Gladiator as a tacky, cheap little thing compared to Magnolia. Safe cost less than $1 million, but its sense of space is absolutely extraordinary, i.e. it's visual "scale" is far superior to most movies that cost fifty times what it did.

actually from what i've read/heard it was $39 million, but all the same anyhow, ur point still stands.

it only made something like 17 million right?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0175880/business

it averaged 22mil a week for the weeks it was big.  Magnolia was not a losing investment
"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell"

mogwai

#18
January 09, 2004, 03:09:13 PM
punch-drunk love grossed $17 mill in u.s. but it "grossed" more when it was released with a adam sandler friendly cover on dvd.

Ravi

#19
January 09, 2004, 04:04:59 PM
Films are a long term investment, so I'm sure even Master and Commander will eventually turn some profit after overseas, cable, broadcast, video, etc. are factored in.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions