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

EDV, There's plenty of people with talent that don't make it big and there's plenty without who do. Life is complicated like that. It's not fair, but that's what it is. Don't get so bitter and jaded over the fact that someone you don't like is getting rich, but just go out there and do your thing. Stop comparing it to the things you don't like, or the people you think are luckier than you, and you'll enjoy it a lot more. It took me a while to figure this out too, and now that I have I really enjoy what I do a lot more.
 
Going back to David Jimerson's point, I would take it one step further.

If an actor does a bad job -- and it makes it to the screen -- that actor's FACE is plastered all over that bad job. Which means that everyone and anyone who see that actor in the real world can ridicule him right to his face. It's the most public humiliation there is. Not so with anyone who works behind the camera.
 
I understand the economic rationale behind this, I just don't agree with it. People watch films for various reasons... maybe they can relate to the subject matter, or liked the book the film is based on, or like the genre, or maybe they just like the special effects, or the cinematography. Maybe the like the music in it, the storyline, or the funny cartoon animations. All these things which vary from film to film are the true reasons why people pay for a movie, but because they can not be easily quantified or measured, Hollywood producers have decided that lead actors ARE the main reason. Not surprising in our celebrity obsessed, individualistic society.
 
EDV said:
I understand the economic rationale behind this, I just don't agree with it. People watch films for various reasons... maybe they can relate to the subject matter, or liked the book the film is based on, or like the genre, or maybe they just like the special effects, or the cinematography. Maybe the like the music in it, the storyline, or the funny cartoon animations. All these things which vary from film to film are the true reasons why people pay for a movie, but because they can not be easily quantified or measured, Hollywood producers have decided that lead actors ARE the main reason. Not surprising in our celebrity obsessed, individualistic society.
Click to expand...

Sorry. People might come away from a movie finding they liked the music in it. But rarely would a person decide to GO to a movie for the music. Or the cinematography. They connect with the characters -- and thus, the actors -- on a level not possible with behind-the-camera people. This is why, when told of a new movie, most people want to know 2 things -- "Who's in it?" and "What's it about?" By and large, they don't care who produced it, who directed it, who wrote the screenplay, who did the music, or any of that other stuff. The average Joe only wants recognizable faces and a good storyline.

I have to say that your last few words gave me pause. "Individualistic society"? Is being an individual a bad thing?
 
EDV said:
I understand the economic rationale behind this, I just don't agree with it. People watch films for various reasons... maybe they can relate to the subject matter, or liked the book the film is based on, or like the genre, or maybe they just like the special effects, or the cinematography. Maybe the like the music in it, the storyline, or the funny cartoon animations. All these things which vary from film to film are the true reasons why people pay for a movie, but because they can not be easily quantified or measured, Hollywood producers have decided that lead actors ARE the main reason. Not surprising in our celebrity obsessed, individualistic society.
Click to expand...

You understand the business case, but you don't like it. Ok. There seems to be something that bugs you about some people getting rich and others not getting rich. But in fact, it is a wonderful thing. The fact there is opportunity for all of us to do what Brad did (come from nothing to a mega millionaire) is terrific. There is opportunity for all. That is a good thing. Why do you object to this wonderful opportunity?

Somehow it is not fair?

[edit] What would you do?
 
David W. Richardson said:
...

I have to say that your last few words gave me pause. "Individualistic society"? Is being an individual a bad thing?
Click to expand...

...and that's the crux of it; what I have been trying to get to. How EDV would deal with his complaint as a producer would say much about where he is coming from.
 
EDV said:
2m5z6a8.jpg
Click to expand...

Exactly! Isn't that wonderful? Endless opportunities for everyone. You don't need a college education. You don't have to come from a rich family. Anyone can do it. Fantastic!

But to say they have no talent is of course, not fair. They may not present the entertainment you like, but they have the where-with-all and energy to do something very few can do.

[edit] Again, you seem to have this objection to people getting rich. I don't understand it.
 
James0b57 said:
That's a bit of a stretch. (even with the 'by and large' qualifier)

Directors are personalities and stars themselves.
Click to expand...

Some directors are. But most average audience members don't go to a movie because a certain person directed it. They go for actors, genre and storyline. Of course, there are exceptions.
 
James0b57 said:
That's a bit of a stretch. (even with the 'by and large' qualifier)

Directors are personalities and stars themselves.
Click to expand...
Agreed about directors, there are certainly people who will go see a "Spielberg" film, etc. Not many directors are "brand names", but some are. Who they really don't care about are writers and producers (although Bruckheimer and Abrams are starting to get brand names for themselves too).
 
Barry_Green said:
Agreed about directors, there are certainly people who will go see a "Spielberg" film, etc. Not many directors are "brand names", but some are. Who they really don't care about are writers and producers (although Bruckheimer and Abrams are starting to get brand names for themselves too).
Click to expand...

Bruckheimer can also be used as a warning for many people. Just like Nicolas Cage will stop me from being interested in the movie (other than Raising Arizona), but that's neither here nor there. Directors, actors, studios, are all indicators of what the product is going to be and the audience uses that to determine if they're going to risk spending their time and money on it. EDV wants the only indicators of the movie's worth to be the talent that goes into making it. Unfortunately it's hard to determine that without seeing it and since nobody has time to see everything, it's going to fall back to the marketable elements which are most easily name recognition. It's also why so many sequels get made...easy marketing something people already know.
 
David W. Richardson said:
People might come away from a movie finding they liked the music in it. But rarely would a person decide to GO to a movie for the music.
Click to expand...

I don't think the lead actors had much pull on these films, as they were unknown at the time.



Clearly the music, and the way it was presented were a huge factor in the success of these films.
 
EDV said:
Seriously guys, did you think I had a thing against actors? I have the utmost admiration for what they do! I've met countless talented actors that NEVER MADE IT past theatre level. Some of them, maybe as good OR BETTER than these highly paid celebrities. I just think it's ridiculous than Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise or any other single actor routinely takes home a multi-million dollar paycheck when there are hundreds of other equally good actors out there that could do the job just as well
It's like having a Steadicam Operator make 5 million dollars for his work in a film, when we know many other Steadicam Operators are just as talented an making much less.
I don't believe celebrity actors deserve THAT much, even if they do make the film more popular. Children for one, are not gonna stop watching an animated movie because some celebrity actor didn't do the voice over.
Click to expand...

No. It is not anything like a steadicam operator making 5 million on a film. You are now being completely illogical.

If you don't understand supply and demand and basic economic principles you can't or don't want to as it's been covered in this thread many times now.

"Just as well" is not the same as "Just as famous" and famous part DOES matter. Do no name bands that are "just as talented" fill up a stadium when they put on a concert? You know the answer is no, so why are you arguing against it?
 
Last edited:
EDV said:
I don't think the lead actors had much pull on these films, as they were unknown at the time.

Clearly the music, and the way it was presented were a huge factor in the success of these films.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone disputes your point that a film can be successful without paying the actors big fees. That doesn't address your original statement:

"I've always despised the fact that the big name actors take a huge chunk of the multimillion dollar budget, while the tech and creative crew take a tiny percentage."

The statement itself makes an incorrect assumption or is poorly crafted. Big name actors don't 'take' a huge chunk of the budget. They 'make' the budget huge. You seem to think there is a big pot of money and a few actors 'took' it and that is apparently despicable for some reason.

I'd still like to hear a direct statement as to why you made the original statement. I genuinely would like to understand the motivation behind it. People have asked you several questions, but you don't provide a direct answer. Can you respond with a direct statement as to why you despise it? Something along the lines of " I despise it because.... [they don't deserve it] or [they should take the $30M and spread it around evenly] or [they shouldn't waste the money on actors.The investors are crazy] or [I hate rich actors] or [no one should be rich] or [I want to be rich so why don't they give it to me] or [?].
 
EDV said:
I don't think the lead actors had much pull on these films, as they were unknown at the time.



Clearly the music, and the way it was presented were a huge factor in the success of these films.
Click to expand...

"Clearly"? Why would you say that?

Amadeus was an adaption of a famous play about (arguably) the most famous classical composer, so it had a high concept. I really don't think anyone went specifically for the music. Plus, it made barely any money in its initial release; it was more successful after buzz (especially Oscar buzz) brought it to general public attention. Even then, it still wasn't any barn-burner.

No one went to Flashdance for the music, either; it was the dancing. It was a sleeper hit with relative unknowns, sure, but you keep bringing up exceptions as though they're the rules. (And by no means was Flashdance a GOOD movie, so I'm not sure why you'd cite it.)
 
Paul F said:
"I've always despised the fact that the big name actors take a huge chunk of the multimillion dollar budget, while the tech and creative crew take a tiny percentage."

The statement itself makes an incorrect assumption or is poorly crafted. Big name actors don't 'take' a huge chunk of the budget. They 'make' the budget huge. You seem to think there is a big pot of money and a few actors 'took' it and that is apparently despicable for some reason.
Click to expand...
Post of the year.

You've so exactly hit the nail on the head that it deserves being quoted again.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding that some people have about business and especially the filmmaking business. They seem to think Warner Brothers (or someone) says "Hey, let's make a movie. We have $100 million, how should we spend it?" That isn't how it works.

How it works is a producer goes to the studio with a script and says "I'm going to make an action film starring Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise, The Rock, and Michelle Rodriguez, off a script from a six-time Oscar-winning writer. Give me $100 million to make it." The studio says "yes". Had the producer said "I'm going to make an action film from a script from a six-time Oscar-winning writer; give me $100 million to make it", the studio would say "Who's starring?" If the producer says "Well, we're going to use unknown actors, but we're going to spread all the money around equally, and I've got a steadicam operator that's the best in the business and he charges $5 million" -- what do you think the studio's answer will be? I'll tell you what it'd be: they'll tell the producer "go to hell, and you'll never work in this town again."

The actors who are in it are the very reason the budget exists. They don't "take" from the budget, they are responsible for someone putting up the money in the first place.
 
Yes, and to use the Amadeus example above, none of the actors in it justified a huge salary, because they didn't have the draw. This is proven by the box-office take.

As a consequence, the budget for Amadeus was very low.
 
To amend what you say a little bit, Barry, the conversation may also be "we want Tom Cruise." "Tom Cruise wants 30 million." "OK, we'll find the money." They might have even had an initial budget in mind, but increased it for Cruise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top