Author Topic: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.  (Read 294297 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +639
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1500 on: January 05, 2009, 07:35:25 PM »
0
Why everyone lies about their movie's budget
Source: Patrick Goldstein; Los Angeles Times

I was at PEN USA's annual Literary Awards Festival a few weeks ago, having a great time, hobnobbing with all sorts of illustrious writers, when I ran into "There Will Be Blood's" writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson, who was there to accept an award for his film script. A huge fan of his work, I told him how much I'd liked his movie. He nodded and shyly smiled, and I thought he might say something like, "Oh, geez, thanks for the compliment." What he really said was: "In that story you did, you got the budget wrong."

If I actually believed in New Year's resolutions, I'd happily promise to never write about a movie's budget ever again -- all it does is cause pain and misery, both for the press, which is always being spun by studio executives and producers, and for the filmmakers, who are always convinced that clueless reporters and columnists are wildly inflating their movie budgets. (It is safe to say that no one in the history of Hollywood has ever complained about the press underestimating the cost of his or her movie.)

To be fair, Anderson wasn't all that angry. We went on to have a perfectly amiable conversation. But I'm sure he was unhappy, since when I made reference to his budget, which I said was in the vicinity of $45 million, I was making the point that his movie -- a dark, intense historical drama -- cost so much (along with the marketing outlays of Paramount Vantage's Oscar campaign) that it could never possibly make a decent profit.

The problem that journalists have in reporting about movie budgets is that nearly everyone they ask about a movie's budget tends to -- how do I put this nicely -- offer a whopper of an untruth. In other words, shock of all shocks, people in Hollywood lie. The studio chief who made the movie gives you a low-ball number. The head of a rival studio, eager to make a competitor look bad, gives you a wildly inflated number. Most journalists have reported that Baz Luhrmann's recent film, "Australia," cost $130 million. 20th Century Fox insists that it cost less, saying it received a hefty subsidy from the Australian government, knocking $30 or so million off that figure. But every rival studio chief I spoke to about the film said with great authority, as if they'd seen a host of internal Fox documents, that the film cost $170 or $180 or $200 million, just to throw out the three different figures I got from three different executives.

What's a reporter to do? Who tells the biggest whoppers? And how does one reporter use triangulation to figure out the real budget number? Keep reading:

I'm old-fashioned about reporting budget numbers. I like to go to the source. In other words, I try not to report a number unless I've gotten it from a top executive at the studio (or financing company) that made the picture or a producer or some other high-level member of the production team. You'd think this would work out pretty smoothly, but even then, I've discovered that budget numbers are a slippery business.

My colleague John Horn, who is something of an expert on movie budgets, since he is always writing about film profitability, reminded me of the legendary example of funny numbers involving Jeffrey Katzenberg and his DreamWorks Animation films. When "Shrek 2" was being released, Katzenberg (like most studio execs) was eager to make the film look as profitable as possible, so he didn't stop reporters from believing his movie cost a pittance. That's why Newsweek, in 2004, reported that the film's stars Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz "got $10 million each to reprise their characters, which accounted for almost half the film's modest $70 million budget." But after DreamWorks Animation went public, its budget figures suddenly soared dramatically, with the company acknowledging that the original "Shrek" cost closer to $130 million, with its and other DreamWorks sequels costing "15 to 30% higher" than that.

Once burned, twice shy, which is why the showbiz media has a healthy skepticism about budgetary information from studio executives. Sometimes you get the feeling that you could ask five people who worked on a film to tell you the budget -- and you'd get five different answers. When I was writing about the unknown screenwriter who'd penned Clint Eastwood's "Gran Torino" last month, I reported that the movie (co-financed by Warners and Village Roadshow) cost $35 million. Warners immediately called to complain, saying my number was totally wrong. Rob Lorenz, a delightful guy who's one of the producers of the film -- and has worked with Eastwood for years -- asked how I could have possibly gotten such a wrong figure. Actually, I told him, I got the budget figure from Bill Gerber, who -- ahem -- was the other producer of the film, with Lorenz and Eastwood. Since Gerber had once been a head of production at Warners, I figured he knew what he was talking about. Lorenz told me the film cost closer to $25 million, so I amended the figure, saying the film cost "less than $30 million."

This happens all the time. I wrote in a recent post that Sam Mendes' "Revolutionary Road," a Paramount film produced by DreamWorks, cost $45 million. I didn't make up the number -- it's what a top executive at Paramount (which then owned DreamWorks) told me the film cost. As soon as the story ran, Stacey Snider, who runs DreamWorks, e-mailed me to say the film only cost $35 million. It seems unlikely that Paramount would inflate the cost of a film it financed and distributed, since if "Revolutionary Road" fails to find an audience, it will look like an ever bigger flop if it cost $45 million instead of $35 million. But I also trust Snider, who has a better track record than most studio chiefs in offering honest numbers. So what does the movie cost? Let's just say -- that's a work in progress.

As you can see, assessing movie budgets is a skill that relies on instinct as much as actual reporting. Horn uses something akin to triangulation, i.e. the art of measuring from three different points of reference, the epicenter being where those lines intersect. As he puts it: "Ask three people without axes to grind, or reasons to lie, what a movie's budget is, and the average of those numbers can be a close approximation of the film's true cost."

When Horn was reporting on the budget of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" for his Word of Mouth column, he asked a few executives "close to Paramount" what the film cost. Two got back to him. One said $175 million. Another said $185 million. Horn ran the lower figure. Even so, the studio complained, saying that while the film's initial budget was in fact $175 million, incentives from Canada and Louisiana -- where much of the film was shot -- reduced the actual cost to $150 million. The Times published a clarification to explain why our original budget number was off the mark.

But right around the time that Paramount was upset that our "Benjamin Button" number was too high, I found myself on the phone with a studio boss who complained that our "Button" number was too low, saying, "You guys are so gullible. That movie cost at least $200 million." I guess that makes us damned if we do, damned if we don't. It makes for a frustrating experience all around. As a baseball junkie, I take pleasure in the sanctity of numbers. You know that at the end of game you can accurately calculate every player's batting average, based solely on his performance. Fudging isn't allowed. If a player's hitting .315, he's hitting .315. If he goes 0-for-4 in the next game, his batting average goes down. No explanation, no exception.

But movie budgets, like everything else about the business, are never black and white. In Hollywood, the numbers are a lot like the truth -- they are always subject to interpretation. 
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Kal

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
  • Success is not a goal, it's a byproduct.
  • Respect: +190
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1501 on: January 05, 2009, 08:56:11 PM »
0
Terrific article Mac. And I don't want to argue with you, Master of the Xixax Universe, but why did you post it here? It has almost nothing to do with PTA and a lot to do with film business in general. If we don't have a thread where we discuss this we should have it. It's very useful information for aspiring filmmakers and people who want to work in film.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5516
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +383
    • my site
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1502 on: January 05, 2009, 09:23:42 PM »
0
mamet made a good point about how studios like to advertise the budget of their films to make the viewers feel important - look at this 90-minute long spectacle that lacked drama or entertainment that costed $90mil, and we did it just for you!
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

Stefen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 7777
  • smh
  • Respect: +191
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1503 on: January 05, 2009, 10:01:40 PM »
0
mamet made a good point about how studios like to advertise the budget of their films to make the viewers feel important - look at this 90-minute long spectacle that lacked drama or entertainment that costed $90mil, and we did it just for you!

And it works. Average audiences are dumb as shit. If something costs alot, then it must be good otherwise, who would put that much money into something that isn't? They're a bunch of dickheads.

All big budgets do is force filmmakers to use money to get their movie made instead of creativity.
Let's go to a motel. We don't have to do anything -- we could just swim.

tpfkabi

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2673
  • Respect: +22
    • twitter deed, twitter dead. in the heart or in the head?
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1504 on: January 05, 2009, 10:35:30 PM »
0
Did I miss it while skimming or did he never present the correct budget amount for TWBB?
I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.

Kal

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3286
  • Success is not a goal, it's a byproduct.
  • Respect: +190
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1505 on: January 05, 2009, 11:04:58 PM »
0
production budget for TWBB was $25M

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10780
  • Respect: +719
    • Floating Heads
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1506 on: April 20, 2009, 05:19:07 PM »
0
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

polkablues

  • Child of Myth
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 7083
  • Respect: +1834
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1507 on: April 20, 2009, 06:18:22 PM »
0
Haha, I saw that on failblog, too.  I'm convinced the marquee guy knew exactly what he was doing.  Which makes it not a fail at all, but a great big juicy win.
Now you're in the *spoiler* place.

md

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +42
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1508 on: October 12, 2009, 07:33:23 PM »
0
I'm a second AC on a feature about this deaf wrestler who went to my college in the 90's, and low and behold the actor casted is no other than the bastard in the basket.

Curiously, I asked him what its like working with PTA, and actually being deaf, he signed to me "The motherfucker cut all my good scenes out" -- at least that's what I interpreted. 



"look hard at what pleases you and even harder at what doesn't" ~ carolyn forche

Stefen

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 7777
  • smh
  • Respect: +191
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1509 on: October 12, 2009, 08:08:59 PM »
0
haha, that's awesome.
Let's go to a motel. We don't have to do anything -- we could just swim.

md

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
  • Respect: +42
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1510 on: October 13, 2009, 09:11:30 PM »
0
hey, sorry for the confusion, but that's just what i interpreted...what he really said is that paul is a really sweet guy, would work with him again in a heartbeat, and that he's a little off his rocker (smiling).  I did ask him about the cut scenes and he named off about 4 or 5 that were shot but later removed. 
"look hard at what pleases you and even harder at what doesn't" ~ carolyn forche

Convael

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Respect: 0
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1511 on: October 13, 2009, 11:59:23 PM »
0
Emily Watson said that he's fucking insane too but in interviews he comes off as pretty normal to me...especially since he got a little older.  He calmed down a lot.  He actually kinda looks/talks like someone who's in their 50s/60s.  That's kinda strange that there were more scenes filmed because I'm pretty sure that there isn't more in the script with the older HW than what's in the movie.

©brad

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4516
  • Respect: +227
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1512 on: October 14, 2009, 12:02:05 PM »
0
Emily Watson said that he's fucking insane too..

She did?

Convael

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Respect: 0
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1513 on: October 14, 2009, 12:12:59 PM »
0
Emily Watson said that he's fucking insane too..

She did?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/paul-thomas-anderson-young-and-breathless-602787.html

I just googled "emily watson" and "pt anderson" and "sugar".  I guess she said "bonkers," "quite screwed up."  And saying someone is less crazy than Lars von Trier isn't saying a whole lot.

Pozer

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2289
  • Respect: +139
Re: There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.
« Reply #1514 on: October 14, 2009, 01:04:53 PM »
0
some years back i worked on a short film that starred the chick that played the phone sex operator in PDL. i got to talkin with her a couple of times and of course all i asked about was PTA and she said the same thing, dude is absolutely insane/cut all my scenes. said it was an out of this world movie set/best movie set ever.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy