District 9 costs 30 mill to make. Elysium cost 100 mil to make. Why?

[EDV]

As I said earlier I can think of a number of great films that were successful at the box office without the need for a big name. I can also think of a number of big budget films that were a flop at the box office inspite of the casting ( Grease 2 *Michelle Pfeiffer* and The Adventures of Pluto Nash * Eddie Murphy * to name only 2 )

People in suits who know nothing about filmmaking end up deciding how budgets are allocated these days. It's not a reflection on how good the actor is, it's more like " this actor is hot right now, he made the list of the sexiest men in Hollywood last year, we better cast him ".
If it was to do with great acting child actors would continue their successful acting careers long after the "cuteness" appeal has worn off.
I liked my Jerry Seinfeld reference in the other post. I don't care how many millions he made, he totally sucked as an actor. TV Sitcoms play this popularity card all the time, and I'd hate films go down that road.

 

[Gillvane]

As I said earlier I can think of a number of great films that were successful at the box office without the need for a big name. I can also think of a number of big budget films that were a flop at the box office inspite of the casting ( Grease 2 *Michelle Pfeiffer* and The Adventures of Pluto Nash * Eddie Murphy * to name only 2 )

People in suits who know nothing about filmmaking end up deciding how budgets are allocated these days. It's not a reflection on how good the actor is, it's more like " this actor is hot right now, he made the list of the sexiest men in Hollywood last year, we better cast him ".
If it was to do with great acting child actors would continue their successful acting careers long after the "cuteness" appeal has worn off.
I liked my Jerry Seinfeld reference in the other post. I don't care how many millions he made, he totally sucked as an actor. TV Sitcoms play this popularity card all the time, and I'd hate films go down that road.

Acting is like music, painting, sculpture, etc. It's subjective. Not everyone will like what you like, and vice a versa. If you don't care that Seinfeld made millions of people laugh, then what do you care about?

 

[Eric Boellner]

Let's play with this idea: What if Brad Pitt had starred in last year's JOHN CARTER?

I think it would have been a bigger financial success than with Taylor Kitsch in the lead.

I agree. I don't think it would have been a hit, but it definitely wouldn't have been the biggest write-off in studio history...

I think with Pitt in the lead role, JC probably could have made it to $350mil-$450mil globally. Now, imagine World War Z with Taylor Kitsch in the lead.

-EMB

 

[Eric Boellner]

I liked my Jerry Seinfeld reference in the other post. I don't care how many millions he made, he totally sucked as an actor. TV Sitcoms play this popularity card all the time, and I'd hate films go down that road.

You actually bring up a great point against your argument. Adam Sandler sucks as an actor. His recent films are just dreck. But would anyone have gone to see Jack and Jill without Sandler in the lead? Sandler's films have averaged $84mil domestic, $141mil worldwide since '94. I think he's more than earned his hundreds of millions. Unless maybe you think the Craft Services PA deserves all that money?

-EMB

 

[Paul F]

....
I liked my Jerry Seinfeld reference in the other post. I don't care how many millions he made, he totally sucked as an actor. TV Sitcoms play this popularity card all the time, and I'd hate films go down that road.

Ok, perhaps this statement is focusing on your dislike that some actors get big wages. He made a lot of money and you think he sucked as an actor. Do you despise that he made a lot of money? Why? What's wrong with it?

I'm still hoping for a direct explanation of your expression of despise of high wages some actors receive.


[edit] So your fear is that the poputlar entertainment will ruin the film business? Well, the movie business has always been that way. That's what they do. They make films that they think people will want to see.

If Brad didn't get $30M for a picture, they still would make the pictures that sell the most tickets. So what's wrong with Brad getting his $30M?

 

[David Jimerson]

As I said earlier I can think of a number of great films that were successful at the box office without the need for a big name. I can also think of a number of big budget films that were a flop at the box office inspite of the casting ( Grease 2 *Michelle Pfeiffer* and The Adventures of Pluto Nash * Eddie Murphy * to name only 2 )

Nobody knew who Michelle Pfeiffer was then, and Eddie Murphy was on the downslope of his career.

But it's true, star power alone can't save a truly unappealing movie.

People in suits who know nothing about filmmaking end up deciding how budgets are allocated these days.

I wouldn't go so far as saying they "know nothing" about filmmaking. And budgets are a business decision anyway.

It's not a reflection on how good the actor is, it's more like " this actor is hot right now, he made the list of the sexiest men in Hollywood last year, we better cast him ".
If it was to do with great acting child actors would continue their successful acting careers long after the "cuteness" appeal has worn off.

You're pretty much self-torpedoing what you're trying say. Movies don't sell on "great acting." Sure, that's one possible appeal, but it's not the driving force. It's something for critics and word of mouth to harp on.

If a child actor's appeal is their cuteness, and they lose it, then they're just not going to be in demand anymore.

I liked my Jerry Seinfeld reference in the other post. I don't care how many millions he made, he totally sucked as an actor. TV Sitcoms play this popularity card all the time, and I'd hate films go down that road.

It has never NOT been that way for films.

 

[Paul F]

People in suits who know nothing about filmmaking end up deciding how budgets are allocated these days.

Well, I don't know about that...

CEO Universal - James Schamus is an award-winning screenwriter (the Ice Storm) and producer (Brokeback Mountain)), and is CEO of Focus Features, the motion picture production, financing, and worldwide distribution company whose films have included Lost in Translation, Milk, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. He is also Professor of Professional Practice in Columbia University’s School of the Arts, where he teaches film history and theory.
Schamus also participates as a member of the Jury for the NYC/CFF, a local New York City Film Festival dedicated to screening films for children between the ages of 3 and 18.[SUP][

Former Fox CEO Tom Rothman[/SUP]]

• In 1987, Tom Rothman began working as an Executive Vice President of Columbia Pictures on all aspects of film development and production.

• He supervised landmark independent films such as Henry V,Much Ado About Nothing, Longtime Companion, Truly Madly Deeply, Wild At Heart, and The Madness of King George. He discovered and championed numerous young filmmakers who went on to become successful, including Ang Lee, Anthony Minghella, and Kenneth Branagh. During this time, the company's films won the Palme D'Or at Cannes three times.

• In 1994, Rothman founded and was the first President of Fox Searchlight, which went on to distribute multiple Oscar winning films, including Slumdog Millionaire , which won the Best Picture Oscar in 2008.

 

[EDV]

 

[EDV]

If Brad didn't get $30M for a picture, they still would make the pictures that sell the most tickets. So what's wrong with Brad getting his $30M?

Filmmaking is an artform, not a business. The fact that Hollywood has turned it into a business doesn't mean that it can only exist that way... but as long as it's run like a business, every key participant should be adequately compensated. If a film makes a $100 million dollar profilt... why should only the celebrity actors get a slice of the pie?

 

[David Jimerson]

If it weren't for the business, there would be hardly any films, and their sophistication would be quite low. It's not just that many of the jobs you're talking about wouldn't exist; they would never have even been invented.

 

[Paul F]

Filmmaking is an artform, not a business. The fact that Hollywood has turned it into a business doesn't mean that it can only exist that way... but as long as it's run like a business, every key participant should be adequately compensated. If a film makes a $100 million dollar profilt... why should only the celebrity actors get a slice of the pie?

The first sentence we can discuss here but it's not so interesting to me to discuss film as art vs business. It's clearly both. Some doing only for the art some do it for both reasons. [edit] if it is only art, then why do you care how much people make producing it?

But I am very interested in learning more about your last sentence, which will lead to a social-political discussion that is likely out of bounds for the forum. I will PM you to discuss this further.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Filmmaking is an artform, not a business. The fact that Hollywood has turned it into a business doesn't mean that it can only exist that way... but as long as it's run like a business, every key participant should be adequately compensated. If a film makes a $100 million dollar profilt... why should only the celebrity actors get a slice of the pie?

Sorry. I'm not an artist. I don't like that word. It implies I somehow exist without having to pay my bills.
I work hard at what I do, and intend to be able to work full time as a filmmaker.
It is 100% a business on my end. It's my job.

 

[Gillvane]

Filmmaking is an artform, not a business. The fact that Hollywood has turned it into a business doesn't mean that it can only exist that way... but as long as it's run like a business, every key participant should be adequately compensated. If a film makes a $100 million dollar profilt... why should only the celebrity actors get a slice of the pie?

Why do you think a grip or electric SHOULD get a piece of the pie? Should the guy flipping hamburgers at McDonald's get a portion of the profits of the company?

 

[Paul F]

Everyone is getting a piece of the pie. No one is working for free except perhaps some interns.

[edit]

Some other ways to think about this;

- Anyone can start their own film company that makes $300M movies and split the profits the way they please. Oh, but wait, it's hard to build a company that makes $300M movies. Maybe that's not such a good idea. or...Someone spent 20 years building up the company. Why would they give up all that hard earned money to those that just came along for the ride?
- Do you own a business? Do you split the profits with your employees and contractors that you hire or do you pay them by the hour or day or project?
- You wrote a great script, it took you two years. You then spent another two years getting financing and you put up your house as well. You directed it. You've put all your artistic and business talents into this project. You worked night and day on it. It is your baby. After putting everything you have into it, you managed to show it at festivals and sold it for $10M. You are exhausted. It took everything out of you. During production, you hired a crew that showed up, put in 14 hour days, and got a good nights rest every night, never concerned about the success or failure of the project, not worried if this project will make them or sink them, not worried 24 hours a day about an endless number of details that need to be dealt with. You paid them a fair wage for a good days work.

Now that you have $10M, taxes leave you with $5M. From that, you need to pay your lawyers what you owe them ($4.5M left), your agent gets 10% of the 10M ($3.5M left), and your publicist and manager get a cut ($3M left), and don't forget the court costs because everyone thought you stole their script ($2.8M left). You have to get your house back out of hock ($2M left), you have to pay back your investors ($1M left), and your wife likes jewelry and thinks $10M will go a long way ($500,000 left).

Now how do you plan to split up that $10M you got?

 

[Paul F]

... but as long as it's run like a business, every key participant should be adequately compensated.

They are. The director, producers, screenwriters, composer, and others all get a fee based upon their value to the project. None of them split the profit, unless they are an investor.

If a film makes a $100 million dollar profilt... why should only the celebrity actors get a slice of the pie?

The profit goes to the investors. The money paid to the actors, director, and the rest is part of the cost of the film. This is determined in advance. If anything is left over after everyone is paid, then the investors split it. The risks are high and the rewards go to those that took the risk or contributed in a large way to the projects success. That is the stockholders, the investors, the producers, director, writers, and down the line. The investors do not hand out money. They make an investment in project and hope it works out. If it does, good for them. If it doesn't then they take the hit. The crew earns a fair wage for a fair days work.

Are you willing to cover the losses when a film losses money (which is most of the time)? If you want to participate in the success of a films profits, then become an investor in film. But be prepared to take the losses.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

Filmmaking is an artform, not a business.

If you expect a single dollar out of it, it's a business. Period. Full stop.

The fact that Hollywood has turned it into a business doesn't mean that it can only exist that way...

Everything you consider to be art, painting, music, dance, all of it can be commercialized at some level. If you want to keep it pure, just do it for yourself. You can be as artistic as you like if you don't expect anything in return. The moment you want a financial return, it's commercialized. That doesn't mean that it can't be art too, or that it can't be good.

but as long as it's run like a business, every key participant should be adequately compensated. If a film makes a $100 million dollar profilt... why should only the celebrity actors get a slice of the pie?

Ah, now we get into the haves and have nots. Everyone makes the choice how much they want for what they do and what they're willing to do. Unless the relationship is abusive like the robber barons and child labor, or the modern equivalent of the execs and interns, you do the jobs you want to do for the pay you can get. I'm all for rules to protect the less powerful from being abused and get a living wage, but at the same time I wouldn't expect to get paid a cut of the profits any more than I'd expect to be sent a bill if the movie flops.

 

[Guest]

If you expect a single dollar out of it, it's a business. Period. Full stop.


Everything you consider to be art, painting, music, dance, all of it can be commercialized at some level. If you want to keep it pure, just do it for yourself. You can be as artistic as you like if you don't expect anything in return. The moment you want a financial return, it's commercialized. That doesn't mean that it can't be art too, or that it can't be good.


Ah, now we get into the haves and have nots. Everyone makes the choice how much they want for what they do and what they're willing to do. Unless the relationship is abusive like the robber barons and child labor, or the modern equivalent of the execs and interns, you do the jobs you want to do for the pay you can get. I'm all for rules to protect the less powerful from being abused and get a living wage, but at the same time I wouldn't expect to get paid a cut of the profits any more than I'd expect to be sent a bill if the movie flops.

You know film making had a long hard journey proving that it was an art. Photography the same, and now we say things like "people turned it into a business", when it was a business long before it was ever an art.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

You know film making had a long hard journey proving that it was an art. Photography the same, and now we say things like "people turned it into a business", when it was a business long before it was ever an art.

The distinction is fairly meaningless really, unless you're trying to make a living. Commerce is easily defined as money is exchanged, but what is art really? Can art exist if money is involved? Of course. But then the debate gets mired in minutiae while the reality is that like most things, it's just a matter of degrees.

 

[Gillvane]

Money is art. Art is money.

 

[Andrius Simutis]

Money is money. Art is art. Artists need money.