Other than Hustle and Wall Street, which were made by two established filmmakers with Oscar nominations/wins (whose careers go back decades), none of those movies were mid-budgeted or made in the studio system. All of them cost under $25 million, and all of them cost under $20 million save for 12 Years a Slave. They were made in a dying independent market where studios saw their quality and/or marketability and scooped them up for distribution.
Good luck getting a $30 million drama made by Hollywood in the studio system if you don't already have "Two Time Academy Award" before your name. It is not the same as what was happening in the 1990s, much less the 1970s. And it is a shame.
I guess I just don't get the Chicken Little attitude about it. Hollywood has been like this since Heaven's Gate failed. Heaven's Gate killed the decent budget auteur films that drove 70's cinema. History has re-written the 1990's independent movement as a fairy-tale that it wasn't. Pulp Fiction, for instance, was made with a non-union crew, and couldn't pay any of the actors more than $20,000 a week. It's total budget was 8.5 million dollars(Around $13 Million now). Tarantino wasn't in a much easier situation than current indie filmmakers. Boogie Nights was made for 15 Million, which rounds out to about 22 million dollars now, which is about the budget of The Master, so Paul Thomas Anderson is having just as hard of a time getting films made now as he did then. Fargo was made for 7 million(about 10 million now). The 1990's weren't any better for the independent artist as they are now. Hell, the 1970's weren't perfect either. Adjusted for inflation, Taxi Driver's budget is 6 million dollars. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is 13 Million. Annie Hall is 15 Million.
For what it's worth, adjusted for inflation, Field Of Dreams cost about 28 million dollars to make, which is less than four of the Best Picture nominees this year and six of the Best Picture nominees last year. Shawshank, adjusted for inflation, cost around 39 Million Dollars to make, which is cheaper than Moneyball, Argo, War Horse, Django Unchained, Les Miserables, Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty, American Hustle, Captain Phillips, and The Social Network to just name a few films from the past four years.
We also have to factor in that the costs of filmmaking have gone down, due to new technology. Say you are doing an adult drama. You could shoot on a Red Epic which would be about $5000 a week, use natural lighting or even a few cheap $200 soft boxes( or even a disco ball on a boom to light) plus your sound equipment, limited crew and you got all the below the line stuff covered for a three week shoot under 30 thousand dollars. If anything, as Martin Scorsese himself said, this should give us hope. More great films can be made because directors are getting the resources cheaper to where they don't have to appeal to the suits any longer.
Overall, yes I agree over-budgeting is a big problem and they should be willing to put a bit more money into adult dramas and such. However, this isn't a new problem, it started in 1980 after Heaven's Gate and hasn't really had any progress since then. Also, it's certainly not the end of art films or anything like that, especially with new technology, the chances of more art films is increasing.
Other than Wolf of Wall St and Enough said, those movies are so depressing and not ones I'd want to re-watch on a regular basis. The two I listed (Field of Dreams and Shawshank) are movies I could flip by on cable on a Sunday afternoon, and drop whatever is I'm doing to re-watch them.
Well that's just opinion based. Personally, I'd watch Inside Lleywen Davis on repeat before having to sit through Field of Dreams again.
To be fair, I really just dislike Kevin Kosner.
