|
I'd limit it a little bit more than that, you can still make a special effects heavy blockbuster-type movie for $80-100 million if budget is actually a priority. $10-70 or 80 million seems more accurate for the type of movie we're talking about. There are plenty of movies being made for under $20 million, but the real dinosaur seems to be those that are in the 25-50 million range.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:Most of your favorite movies are mid-range projects. It's nice to go outside, follow a character through a journey, maybe wreck a car or two along the way. Look at a movie like "Clueless". Everybody loves "Clueless". It cost $12M 20 years ago, so let's just estimate $30M, even with unknown leads. That movie cannot get made today. It's weird, but when I look at "Clueless" today (and I'm just picking all these movies at random, btw, no real reason) I see a lot of big, expensive things - just the sheer number of characters in it, driving on a Los Angeles highway, all the locations, look at how many people are at that dance! Who's going to put up $30M for a movie about a teenage girl's lovelife to shoot scenes in a real mall? What other country is going to be gung ho about watching "Clueless"? So that's the first time someone's taken up the challenge of naming a movie that wouldn't get made today but...Bridesmaids was 5 years ago and cost 32.5. Superbad was a decade ago and cost 20 million. Bad Moms cost 20 million this year, The Hangover cost 35 million, the 20-40 million range is the bulk of hit comedies in the last 15 years. These movies are obviously a different style of comedy than Clueless, but that's a separate issue - raunchy semi-improv ensemble comedies are in, and can get 30 million dollar budgets and turn profits on them. 20 years ago, Amy Heckerling was a name director whose previous two movies were a gigantic monster hit and the then expected diminishing returns sequel to that hit, and a comedy about hot valley girls starring the girl from the Aerosmith videos who had just dramatically impacted the sexual tastes of a whole generation of boys was the same kind of en vogue idea. Bad Moms seems like exactly the same kind of movie today, and it got made and was a similar level of hit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Trainwreck also cost $35m and made over $100m. Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping cost $20m and made less than $10m. Tons of comedies are getting made in the "mid-budget" range of $20m-$70m. I'm sure it's not that different for other genres too, if you really try to dig for data.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
When people say mid budget movies have died do they really mean that there are less dramas being made now then in the 70s? I think that's a case of partially TV taking up the mantle and audiences being undemanding and claiming there aren't enough new films, but going to see comic book movie #367 anyway. Besides come Oscar season there's still plenty of bait films
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Purple Monkey posted:When people say mid budget movies have died do they really mean that there are less dramas being made now then in the 70s? I think that's a case of partially TV taking up the mantle and audiences being undemanding and claiming there aren't enough new films, but going to see comic book movie #367 anyway. Besides come Oscar season there's still plenty of bait films Are you sure people arn't going because something like 90% are lovely remake/reboot movies? Like suicide squad's thrilling climax is keeping people in seats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:Are you sure people arn't going because something like 90% are lovely remake/reboot movies? Like suicide squad's thrilling climax is keeping people in seats. See this would make sense as a theory to me if good movies consistently made money and bad ones didn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:Are you sure people arn't going because something like 90% are lovely remake/reboot movies? Like suicide squad's thrilling climax is keeping people in seats. It actually did, Suicide Squad had better legs than most movies this year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
I'm always surprised that Peak TV and the increasing power of Netflix and other distribution formats isn't brought up more in these discussions. Even if there really are less mid-budget movies being made there are a shitload more serialized programs taking their place and arguably taking better advantage of the same resources; something like Stranger Things is for all intents and purposes a mid-budget movie that just happens to take place over 7.5 hours instead of 2 and is way better for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:I'm always surprised that Peak TV and the increasing power of Netflix and other distribution formats isn't brought up more in these discussions. Even if there really are less mid-budget movies being made there are a shitload more serialized programs taking their place and arguably taking better advantage of the same resources; something like Stranger Things is for all intents and purposes a mid-budget movie that just happens to take place over 7.5 hours instead of 2 and is way better for it. You don't make any money from Netflix.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Guy Mann posted:I'm always surprised that Peak TV and the increasing power of Netflix and other distribution formats isn't brought up more in these discussions. Even if there really are less mid-budget movies being made there are a shitload more serialized programs taking their place and arguably taking better advantage of the same resources; something like Stranger Things is for all intents and purposes a mid-budget movie that just happens to take place over 7.5 hours instead of 2 and is way better for it. I'm not sure about that, it could have stood to be shorter. Some ideas are better done without padding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:You don't make any money from Netflix. I find that hard to believe. Doesn't Netflix pay content creators who make original-to-Netflix shows?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I find that hard to believe. Doesn't Netflix pay content creators who make original-to-Netflix shows? That's not the same thing as making money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:That's not the same thing as making money. Something like 50% of Netflix's revenues go directly to licensing costs and while their indebtedness is about half that of the industry average, they're still at a 1:1 debt-to-equity ratio. And that's without the abstract problem where a lot of your funding comes from subscriptions that have to be amortized across all of your original and licensed content.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
I gotta agree with NeuroticErotica, Jivjov, and Braniac Five here and say that it's a tough call because when you agree to make a Netflix Exclusive original it's dope that you get paid for it. But it sucks that after it's released in theaters or DVD or dtv or Hulu or wherever it came out, if you decide that you want to expand your audience by distributing it through Netflix neither you or Netflix makes any money from it.
Hat Thoughts fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Oct 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Something like 50% of Netflix's revenues go directly to licensing costs and while their indebtedness is about half that of the industry average, they're still at a 1:1 debt-to-equity ratio. And that's without the abstract problem where a lot of your funding comes from subscriptions that have to be amortized across all of your original and licensed content. Sure, but isn't he talking about the content creators and not Netflix itself?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Sure, but isn't he talking about the content creators and not Netflix itself? My big theory is that NeuroticErotica wasnt talking about originals & just Netflix as a platform for rereleasing stuff that already came out somewhere else & there's actually 3 seperate convos going on
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Sure, but isn't he talking about the content creators and not Netflix itself? I mean, the convo started with "Netflix is a good platform for getting the kind of dramas that used to be made as mid-budget movies made", and Netflix doesn't make much money so there's only so much you can get out of them from producing a miniseries. And if you're using Netflix as your primary distributor, you've got all the problems of securing funding that currently exist plus the question of whether the loss of theatrical distribution costs makes up for the loss of ticket money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
It's not like Netfix is small potatoes.quote:A little over a year ago, Netflix borrowed a ton of money in order to really kick up its original programming lineup a notch or five. As it turns out, in 2016 Netflix will show no signs of slowing down. In fact, the subscription streaming service announced at the TCA winter press tour that the company is going to be spending an incredible amount of money to continue to produce new originals for fans. The insane amount the global company plans to spend? 6 billion. Yes, billion with a “b.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I think there's more than one convo going on at once and I got confused.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:My big theory is that NeuroticErotica wasnt talking about originals & just Netflix as a platform for rereleasing stuff that already came out somewhere else & there's actually 3 seperate convos going on Yup. I don't think there's much money for the creators of the originals as well. You lose any ongoing income streams (TV/VOD/etc) and even the payments you'd usually get from Netflix they're exempt for a year. By then they show is long irrelevant and I can't imagine it doing many streams. Snowglobe of Doom posted:It's not like Netfix is small potatoes. What you announce you intend to spend and what you actually spend are two different things. Even then I'd wager that the bulk of the money is geared towards the existing IPs they've been partnering with. Netflix has given people a really skewed and bizarre view of how movies work. When dealing with people outside the industry they just assume I can put a movie up on Netflix myself (!) and just start making money. Or that the exposure from it will somehow lead to DVD sales. Or that Netflix is financing a ton of projects. It's like... You pay $8 for something you watch a few hours of shows a day, how much do you think the people behind the movies are making from this? People notice the shrinking library and don't put two-and-two together that maybe this isn't a great long term solution for how to run an industry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
DeimosRising posted:So that's the first time someone's taken up the challenge of naming a movie that wouldn't get made today but...Bridesmaids was 5 years ago and cost 32.5. Superbad was a decade ago and cost 20 million. Bad Moms cost 20 million this year, The Hangover cost 35 million, the 20-40 million range is the bulk of hit comedies in the last 15 years. Yea, exactly. I just dont understand how "somethjng like Clueless wouldn't be made today" is the argument instead of "something like Clueless wouldn't get the same amount of money to be made". I know ive seen crowds in movies since the 90s that weren't blockbusters! Cars too! 500 days of summer had a big dance number with crane shots and everything and as I recall it was pretty cheap (I know it's just one example and I tried to steer away from the " name movies to prove my point" in the OP but you started it  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:56
|
|
