ultimatefan
The Batman must come back
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2001
- Messages
- 38,117
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Let´s look at two recent blockbusters, King Kong and X3. At first sight, their box office is pretty impressive. One made 218m domestically, 550m worldwide. The other, 230m domestic, so far 436m worldwide. If you look at Superman Returns, the movie has made 146m in 12 days, an amount that would be far to reach by most movies. Yet, these numbers have been considered somewhat underwhelming. Why? Because these movies cost too damn much to make and advertise. There seems to be a trend now in Hollywood to make 200m-plus budget movies. The thing is, does it pay off to spend so much?
Of course before this there was Titanic, which back then was considered an "absurd" budget. As a trend, I´d say it started with Spidey 2. Because till maybe 2005, we were getting a whole buncha movie franchises making over 250m at the domestic BO and over 600m ww... LOTR, HP, Spidey, SW prequel trilogy, the Pixar movies, POTC, etc. There seemed to be a huge market for these superexpensive blockbusters.
But then again, in 2005, things started a significant shift downwards, and it´s getting worse. in 2004 at this point, four movies had done over 250m domestically and 600m ww. In 2005, only one, but in compensation several movies broke the 200m domestic barrier. So far, in 2006,no movie has yet broken the 250m mark and only three have already reached 200m. Overseas it´s a little brighter with two movies in the 600m ww, but this year there aren´t major holiday releases like HP, Narnia and Kong last year. Whether it´s the home viewing experience, lost of interest or whatever, the market today, especially in US, is not so friendly anymore to such expensive movies. of course there´s merchandise, DVDs, etc., but studios want to impress at the BO, it´s their calling card for the rest of the revenue. These budgets compensated for POTC2 and Spidey 2, but these are already established franchises. To take these chances with something untested at this point looks dangerous.
Then again, do these movies NEED to cost that much? Couldn´t have Peter Jackson, or Bryan Singer have properly told their stories without breaking the bank like that? Did all those animal shots in KK need to be as long and as many as they were? Did Singer have to shoot a scene in Krypton he didn´t even use in the theatrical movie? And did these movies really need to be so long? Wouldn´t they have been less expensive and better paced if they were kept close to the traditional two hours? A lot of last year´s biggest hits cost considerably less than 200m: Harry Potter, CATCF, Mr And Mrs Smith, Batman Begins (let´s not even get started on the Wedding Crashers phenomenon). Does the "you have to spend more to make more" philosophy really apply?
Things going like this, studios will have to either take better control of their budgets or they may have to work even harder on making their DVDs sell well, because the truth is, theatrical box office isn´t in great shape right now, and studios are making it seem even worse by spending more and more money on the movies.
Of course before this there was Titanic, which back then was considered an "absurd" budget. As a trend, I´d say it started with Spidey 2. Because till maybe 2005, we were getting a whole buncha movie franchises making over 250m at the domestic BO and over 600m ww... LOTR, HP, Spidey, SW prequel trilogy, the Pixar movies, POTC, etc. There seemed to be a huge market for these superexpensive blockbusters.
But then again, in 2005, things started a significant shift downwards, and it´s getting worse. in 2004 at this point, four movies had done over 250m domestically and 600m ww. In 2005, only one, but in compensation several movies broke the 200m domestic barrier. So far, in 2006,no movie has yet broken the 250m mark and only three have already reached 200m. Overseas it´s a little brighter with two movies in the 600m ww, but this year there aren´t major holiday releases like HP, Narnia and Kong last year. Whether it´s the home viewing experience, lost of interest or whatever, the market today, especially in US, is not so friendly anymore to such expensive movies. of course there´s merchandise, DVDs, etc., but studios want to impress at the BO, it´s their calling card for the rest of the revenue. These budgets compensated for POTC2 and Spidey 2, but these are already established franchises. To take these chances with something untested at this point looks dangerous.
Then again, do these movies NEED to cost that much? Couldn´t have Peter Jackson, or Bryan Singer have properly told their stories without breaking the bank like that? Did all those animal shots in KK need to be as long and as many as they were? Did Singer have to shoot a scene in Krypton he didn´t even use in the theatrical movie? And did these movies really need to be so long? Wouldn´t they have been less expensive and better paced if they were kept close to the traditional two hours? A lot of last year´s biggest hits cost considerably less than 200m: Harry Potter, CATCF, Mr And Mrs Smith, Batman Begins (let´s not even get started on the Wedding Crashers phenomenon). Does the "you have to spend more to make more" philosophy really apply?
Things going like this, studios will have to either take better control of their budgets or they may have to work even harder on making their DVDs sell well, because the truth is, theatrical box office isn´t in great shape right now, and studios are making it seem even worse by spending more and more money on the movies.
