I did a search on it but couldn't find a discussion about it.
Tarantino said 'movies are way to expensive today.'
Are they? I love the thought of doing films with a smaller budget and being left alone.
Are there people here who want to make bigger films ala LOTR, Gladiator, Mission Impossible etc? I think it's if there are. Most people getting into filmmaking are too occupied watching "important" films and forget about the fact that movies should entertain as well.
Well, I'd like to do small films, but ever since I wanted to become a filmmaker, I've wanted to do big entertaining things (ala Lord of the Rings or Gladiator).
I 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.
Money can buy you lots of expensive gimmicks and tricks, but it can't buy you greatness. That's where imagination, thought, and skill come in. The ability to effectively use the resources available as opposed to throwing more resources at a sinking ship (and yes, for the record, I think Titanic is awful).
You're right but it depends on what kind of story you want to tell.
Different stories require different amounts of money.
Well what the hell else are they going to do with all that money? Give it to charity? Bwaahahahaha! Yeah right!
In mainstream Hollywood, bigger is better. If a major studio had made Pulp Fiction, the budget would have been $50 million. Profligacy is the order of the day.
Quote from: kotteYou're right but it depends on what kind of story you want to tell.
Different stories require different amounts of money.
I'll admit it's true that if you want a ton of extras and sweeping, panoramic vistas in your film (an "epic"), it's going to cost you... but not many STORIES reqeuire the ludicrous amounts of money that movies cost. Name actors and technophilic stunts are BIG line items in a film's budget, as we all know.
What soixante said makes sense to me. I also think far too much is made of a film's budget, be it big or small. All I know is that I think
In the Company of Men is a vastly superior film to
Titanic, and I didn't think once about how much money was spent as I watched either film (though I have had many occasions, such as this one, to think about it subsequently).
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.
There is a tendency for major studios to simply throw money at a problem and hope that a mediocre project can become watchable. Quite often on big budget films, studios spend millions hiring teams of writers and re-writers to "improve" scripts.
I think the common denominator between good indie films and good mainstream films is not just a good script, but a singular guiding vision for the project that isn't compromised -- Your Friends and Neighbors represents Neil La Bute's world-view, and Thin Red Line represents Terrence Malick's singular vision of warfare. One film cost $80 million or so, the other was very low-budget, but both films bear the unmistakeable stamps of their respective creators.
When Hollywood studios allow a director (or writer) to fully explore a unique vision (such as L.A. Confidential or Mystic River), the results are often excellent. The problem with Hollywood is second-guessing, developing projects by committee. Even Titanic was the result of one man's abiding vision.
That is why Miramax has been so successful -- they respect the material they develop. Rather than trying to shape material for the market, they make high-quality films and then figure out a way to position their films in the market. Highly successful Miramax films like Pulp Fiction and English Patient were major studio castoffs, put into turnaround because they were "uncommercial." Chicago bounced around for years at the major studios, and none of those geniuses could figure out how to put such challenging material on its feet. The major studios look at material like Chicago and reject it out of hand, because it is "downbeat" and there are no characters to "root for."
Miramax spends a lot less than the major studios, yet their films are better. Why is that? The feel for material that Harvey Weinstein has is second to none in the industry.
I think a large majority of us, but I could be wrong, want to make low-budget films, relying more on our own skills to accomplish things and trick photography... I know I do, and I know quite a few other people who do as well. Saving your money on things you can do yourself leaves you with more for later (not just for the movie but maybe paying rent or bills or food or whatever).
But I also think deep down inside all of us we want an epic saga spending an umpteen million of dollars and reaping all the credit for years to come.
Movies cost money because stars cost money. If you have to pay your stars between $10-20 million apiece, you're going to blow maybe $40 million right there.
Quote from: kotteTarantino said 'movies are way to expensive today.'
I think that comment goes further than just production costs. Tickets are too expensive. Making films at a rate of one every two years for a director that is productive is expensive in time. Film stars are expensive. To make any first rate film (in technical quality) is as expensive as the big epics of yesterday. Trying to get financial backing for a risky film is expensive for a producer in time and effort. Promotion is expensive in money and time. Everything is expensive.
Anyone can argue that everything else in the arts has risen in money being a larger strangle hold these days, but no other art is so closer associated to technology and large costs as is film.
Quote from: ©bradQuote 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?
yeah i was thinking the other day about how funny it was that Pearl Harbors budget back in the day was so ground breaking.
I agree cheap movies are often much better. Plus Hollywood seems to think a bigger budger makes a better movie.
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.
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...
Quote from: ewardQuote from: ©bradQuote 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
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.
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.