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

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...

In the case of "Flashdance"(1983) it was a success almost in spite of the studio/distributor Paramount. I watched it over the weekend and the special features. It was filled with 'unknowns'. Adrian Lyne indicated he refused the script several times, until eventually one was written that he could sign up for. There was also mention that Paramount was pretty ambivalent about the production as well.

The film caught a wave and the rest is history.
 
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...


To EDV's point, there are some FX guys who, while not necessarily brand names, will command much higher fees than others, and can balloon a budget, because audiences want what they do -- guys like Stan Winston (RIP), Phil Tippet, Ray Harryhausen in yesteryear, etc. In the case of Stan Winston, at least, you might have even been able to market a movie with his name. That they make gobs of money next to most FX guys is par for the course.

Industrial Light & Magic is literally a brand name, and is also a "brand name" which CAN sell a movie. You aren't going to be hiring them on a low budget. Which, I guess by EDV's reckoning, is unfair to the camera department, which would generally get paid the same whether the production used ILM or not.

A celebrity FX guy, of course, is quite rare. But then, so is the super-celebrity actor, actually.
 
My $5 million dollar Steadicam Operator example was hypothetical... c'mon. Anyway, I can see why Tom Cruise gets away with 30 million dollar paychecks: everybody goes along with this nonsensical "proven formula" ! I've quoted two films that were highly successful ( by that I mean, distribution went worldwide, they made a decent profit, etc ) inspite of using unknown lead actors. There are many other examples, in Hollywood and outside. To me this shows that not everybody is a sucker for the "celebrity actor appeal"... some people care about the plot, or the subject matter, or the genre, or a number of other things such as music or spectacular visuals. And yes, these people will pay to see a film for these reasons, regardless of who is playing the lead. The film going public is a bit smarter than you give them credit for. They're not a bunch of 14 year olds lining up to see Justin Bieber.
 
EDV said:
My $5 million dollar Steadicam Operator example was hypothetical... c'mon. Anyway, I can see why Tom Cruise gets away with 30 million dollar paychecks: everybody goes along with this nonsensical "proven formula" ! I've quoted two films that were highly successful ( by that I mean, distribution went worldwide, they made a decent profit, etc ) inspite of using unknown lead actors. There are many other examples, in Hollywood and outside. To me this shows that not everybody is a sucker for the "celebrity actor appeal"... some people care about the plot, or the subject matter, or the genre, or a number of other things such as music or spectacular visuals. And yes, these people will pay to see a film for these reasons, regardless of who is playing the lead. The film going public is a bit smarter than you give them credit for. They're not a bunch of 14 year olds lining up to see Justin Bieber.
Click to expand...

No, that's pretty much EXACTLY who they are. I think this could be one of your disconnects.

As I said, Amadeus wasn't actually that financially successful (to the extent it was, it was because the budget was so low to begin with, and no one split a giant pot of gold afterward) and Flashdance was a fluke. Flashdance also had the "Bieber" appeal you're decrying, because it was NOT a good movie.

If it's OK with you that people go to a movie just for music (which is very rare), rather than the filmmaking, why isn't it OK with you that they go to a movie because they like an actor? Or, if they're in their seats for the "spectacular visuals," why can't they be there for an appealing actor? (Me, I'm 10x more likely to consider watching a movie I normally wouldn't if Isla Fisher is in it, and I won't apologize.)

But you know what? Ultimately, you're perfectly free to try to do what the "celebrity actors" do. You can demand a higher fee or refuse to grant your services. So why don't you?
 
EDV, I was hoping to learn something from you, but your responses avoid direct discussion and drift from point to point. C'est la vie.

[edit] Actually, I did learn something from that.
 
Paul F said:
EDV, I was hoping to learn something from you, but your responses avoid direct discussion and drift from point to point. C'est la vie.
Click to expand...
I've avoided this discussion because I thought this was clear from the beginning.

I'm actually very surprised by the amount of responses he's garnered. He must be overjoyed. :laugh:
This thread was troll-bait from the beginning.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on.
 
EDV said:
The film going public is a bit smarter than you give them credit for. They're not a bunch of 14 year olds lining up to see Justin Bieber.
Click to expand...
That pretty much sums up my position. Anyway... sorry to hijack the thread like that... I always enjoy a good debate. I thought it was important to discuss this in a filmmakers forum especially. A film can still be great and inspire people regardless of who stars in it. I am not saying that "its all about the content" either... I do believe the way a film is presented ( acting, cinematography, locations, costume design, sound, etc. ) is supremely important, .. we all want to make films we're proud of. Perhaps we should have made the distinction between "Films" and "Hollywood Blockbusters" right from the start.
 
That distinction would have rendered the entire conversation moot, because it's the blockbusters which pay the stars the huge salaries. If you want art films, well, no one gets paid very much.
 
David Jimerson said:
That distinction would have rendered the entire conversation moot, because it's the blockbusters which pay the stars the huge salaries. If you want art films, well, no one gets paid very much.
Click to expand...

From a site called http://celebnetworth.org/george-clooney-net-worth-salary, lists Clooney's 'pay' for "Good Night Good Luck"(2005) as $1... no long list of '0' after that... like many other films he has acted in...

I believe he also now takes more points rather than upfront paycheck.
 
Here's an interesting factoid: Elysium cost what District 9 grossed domestically ($115mil), and opened domestically to what District 9 cost ($30mil). <--most useless post ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top