JJ Abrams says movie budgets are outrageous.

A

Aspiring Mogul

I understand that the majors can't make a movie unless they can expect a profit of $150 million. That leaves a market gap for lower-budget movies that cost less and make less than $99 million, and I'm wondering why this isn't being done more often.

JJ Abrams is saying that budgets are outrageous, and he does try to make lower-budget movies. I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on why such movies aren't being made.
 
Film studios are a business like any other business.
Their goal is to invest their resources to make a positive return, ROI.
All the major film studios are publicly traded on the stock exchange, often as a division of a larger media conglomerate.
If that division DOES NOT make prudent investments it risks being sold off with it's licensing assets.
That isn't good, and something to be avoided.

Consumers are retarded. I mean "conflicted."
On the one hand they want new and innovative products, and on the other hand they want something that they are familiar with, and on yet a third hand they want to complain if your give them new products they don't understand while at the same time complain about you giving them the same old stuff.
Well... SH!T! F#CK! D@MN! MAKE UP YOUR G D MINDS!

If consumers like a new or existing product - give them more of that, only a "little different", with like caramel on top. And then again with sprinkles on top. BUT NOT CHOCOLATE CHIPS! That'll freak 'em out! Maybe if you blend the chocolate chips INSIDE the product they'll go for that.
It's a cr@p shoot.

Tent poles.

Tent poles, remakes, and sequels are profitable because the audience has already vetted the material.
And it's best to go whole hog with monster budgets. Or semi-monster budgets, a la JOHN CARTER and BATTLESHIT. SHIP! SHIP! BATTLESHIP!

Introducing a set of characters in a "universe" is an expensive gamble, one studios are loathe to do but smaller production outfits are only left with this high risk option.

So, if you're a major studio with $500m to spend over the next four quarters where do you spread your risk?
Across one or two big budget films, eight fair budget films, four low budget films and buy the rights to fifty intellectual properties to shelve until the rights convert back.

If you're a minor studio with $15m to spend over the next four quarters where do you spread your risk?
One fair budget film, one low budget film, and five intellectual properties to sell to someone else like trading cards.

That's why. :yes:
 
Last edited:
The big studio movies (and TV) are expensive because people are
paid well. He is very, very well paid for what he does. I wonder if
one way he is thinking of lowering the over all budget is taking a
personal pay cut.
Aspiring Mogul said:
I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on why such movies aren't being made.
Click to expand...
Low and lower budget movies ARE being made. Abrams won’t make
them, but other directors are making them.
 
Low budget (by studio standards) can be very, very profitable.
Low budget (by independent standards) can be very, very profitable.

Any movie can fail.

When you say "sweeping the market" what do you mean? And what
budget range are you talking about? Under $5 million? $5 million to
$40 million? You mention $99 million - is that the budget you're talking
about? Movies made for under $100 million? Movies at the budget are,
in fact, sweeping the market.
 
The business side of things often gets forgotten by some. As an audience member I don't really care how low or high the budget is as long as it has an interesting story and it is executed well.

The best movie ever made could have only cost $1 million and the worst film could have cost $50 million plus.

As a filmmaker at my current level I would be very happy to progress to the level of making movies for direct to dvd/blu-ray/internet that I receive payment for.

I believe in working your way up and starting small before going big.
 
rayw said:
Consumers are retarded. I mean "conflicted."
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that, in the larger sense. You are right that people complain constantly about sequels/remakes/adaptations, then they flock to see them...in 3-D! If they didn't, the studios wouldn't keep making them; I guarantee that 100%.

There is an audience for more original fare, but it isn't very large so don't go spending very much on it.
 
I think remakes would be better if they remade movies that are older, like at least 30 years? They keep remaking movies that are 20 years old or less.
 
I have just been doing some reading on B-Grade and Z-Grade movies and it got me thinking - why doesn't someone look to them as films to remake considering they are not major hits or great films in people's eyes? They could take the story of the film and update it or re-package it for modern audiences.

But then I think of the fact that the title of these types of films would be worthless to studios who want returns on their investments that are guaranteed by name association.
 
I'll contend that studios aren't in the business of losing money - if they could make a movie for cheaper, they most certainly would.

Movies need budgets to be made. Yep, there are a lot of great low budget movies, but how many good action thrillers? Or scifis with incredible SFX that keep an audience riveted?

I'd also contend that whilst you could still get a Director or DP or lead actor for less than $x million, would they really bring the same strengths to the table? You could get away with paying an unknown 1/10th of the price you might pay say George Clooney, but would the film be as bankable and guarantee a return? You could get a Director for 1/10th the cost of Spielberg but would the movie be anywhere near as good? Maybe, but maybe (and im some cases most probably) not.
 
jax_rox said:
I'll contend that studios aren't in the business of losing money - if they could make a movie for cheaper, they most certainly would.
Click to expand...

If Abrams would agree to take 20% less for the next Star Trek film
than he did for the first one I could take his statements in that
interview a little more seriously. I wonder if he is taking less or more
for the new "Mission: Impossible" film? I wonder if he is asking
Cruise to take less?

I'm all for people making as much money as they can - I am a full
on capitalist. If those "above-the-liners" can command and get tens
of millions foe each movie I am 100% on their side. What worries me
is that people like Abrams do not take a pay cut, but they try to cut
the pay of the crew. Imagine if all the "above-the-liners" took a 20%
pay cut for the next film...

I suspect Abrams would call that "preposterous".
 
I think what JJ was saying was that he alternates project to project, from pricey to low price. Whether or not that all lines up in chronological order on his IMDb page........ doubtful. So unless we're actually in the office rooms at Bad Robot, I don't think we'll ever know how strictly JJ is following his pattern.

You might greenlight shows in the order of big, small, big, small, big, small, but over time the actual pre-production and development probably makes headlines in Variety as big, big, big, small, small, big, big.

Or actually it probably goes big, big, big, big with every little mention of the small.

I'm not defending the guy. I do love his work but I can't go so far as to say that it's certain that's he's being true to his word about budgeting. I'm just saying it's hard to ever know just how closely he's doing it. His idol is Spielberg and Spielberg clearly states that he tries to alternate....... between escapist fiction and meaningful drama. So I would imagine that JJ might try to do the same thing and involve budgetary decisions as well. Maybe.
 
What RayW said. it's just a business.

And movie budgets spike considerably once you taking soundtracks into account. Using a Rolling Stones song is about 5 million per song, something crazy like that.
 
directorik said:
I'm all for people making as much money as they can - I am a full
on capitalist. If those "above-the-liners" can command and get tens
of millions foe each movie I am 100% on their side. What worries me
is that people like Abrams do not take a pay cut, but they try to cut
the pay of the crew. Imagine if all the "above-the-liners" took a 20%
pay cut for the next film...
Click to expand...

The global trends depressing wages will eventually affect those who work above the line.

BTW, Rik, to answer your earlier question about my post, when I said, "sweeping the market", I meant cleaning up on the market for low- and mid-size budget films. If I could make a film for $10 million and sell it for $20 million, I wouldn't complain.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
The global trends depressing wages will eventually affect those who work above the line.
Click to expand...
History has proven that global trends depressing wages have never
touched the above-the-line wages. No matter which direction wages
move this has had no affect at all on what the name stars earn for a
movie.

Aspiring Mogul said:
BTW, Rik, to answer your earlier question about my post, when I said, "sweeping the market", I meant cleaning up on the market for low- and mid-size budget films. If I could make a film for $10 million and sell it for $20 million, I wouldn't complain.
Click to expand...
You and I have had this exact same discussion before. It is very
possible for a $10 million picture to return $20 million (or more)
and there are hundreds of examples of movies “sweeping the
market” in the way you mention. So I don’t quite understand
your point.

You said are wondering why this isn’t being done more often;
“this” meaning lower budget movies - yet most movies made in
the US and Canada are made for under $99 million. Almost all
movies made around the world are made for under $99 million.
Movies above the $150 million mark are very, very few. In 2010
there were eight, in 2011 there were four.
 
The Underworld series is considered low budget by studio standards, and makes profit. The original was made for $25 Million and made $50 in box office sales.

It is a good quality series for its budget range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top