Let's Talk About Movie Budgets

[Ninjablade]

I have to disagree with people who want shorter movies. For example, I feel many MCU movies would have benefited from a longer running time. I miss slow character moments in movies where the audience is allowed to breathe.

That's more of a pacing and plotting issue more so than a runtime one. Longer runtimes can fix that, but not necessarily. Plenty of older movies took their time to breathe despite shorter runtimes. The MCU struggles with this quite a bit no matter what the length is, as evident with their tv shows which don't do anything with the allotted time they have.

I don't have an issue with movie runtimes. Dead Reckoning, The Batman, Blade Runner 2049, and John Wick 4 are all 2:45, but they're wonderfully paced so it just blows by. Cocaine Bear was 1:35 and that was one of the most dragging theater experience I've had all year. In relation to budgets though, yeah some films need to cut down on time. To keep the Dial of Destiny thing going, if you cut that prologue there goes probably a third of the budget and nearly a half hour of wasted time.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

There is just no reason that the budgets for some movies have gone as high as they have. Avatar, Avengers, Transformers, etc yes. They will need big budgets as they're CGI heavy.

But a costume doesn't need to be CGI, entire backgrounds don't need to be and an Indiana Jones movie (which I liked BTW) doesn't need to cost £2-300 million.

Get a grip on the budgets before things implode.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

If it's a movie that the audience really wants to see then the runtime is irrelevant.

But it does add to the expense, and this is a thread about movie budgets.

 

[kguillou]

There is just no reason that the budgets for some movies have gone as high as they have. Avatar, Avengers, Transformers, etc yes. They will need big budgets as they're CGI heavy.

But a costume doesn't need to be CGI, entire backgrounds don't need to be and an Indiana Jones movie (which I liked BTW) doesn't need to cost £2-300 million.

Get a grip on the budgets before things implode.

Theyre already imploding. Barring a few exceptions, these summer movies are all flopping and underperforming and losing their studios hundreds of millions of dollars. Even MI: 7 isnt doing that well.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Theyre already imploding. Barring a few exceptions, these summer movies are all flopping and underperforming and losing their studios hundreds of millions of dollars. Even MI: 7 isnt doing that well.

And this is why they need to keep budgets under control. Some movies have shown decent legs even after a large 2nd weekend drop. But overall too many are crashing and burning.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Theyre already imploding. Barring a few exceptions, these summer movies are all flopping and underperforming and losing their studios hundreds of millions of dollars. Even MI: 7 isnt doing that well.

And MI:7 is important because a lot of the discussion previously was about how the movies just needed to be better. But here is a movie that is highly regarded, and it still isn't making money. There is more going on than just the quality of the films.

 

[MadVillainy]

The sad thing about a lot of these budgets too is that they're still underpaying sooo many people, especially VFX artists, with these insane budgets. So if they were paying the people fairly, the budgets would be even higher.

 

[MadVillainy]

I don't think there's gonna be a solve for budgets anytime soon. Even removing the delays for strikes and all that. I just can't see budgets going down.

Since I don't work in Hollywood idk what can fix it.

The shorter runtime thing presented in heremakes sense, but I think people are leaving out that most movies aren't filmed with a specific runtime in place. They really only figure out the runtime during editing/post production. I know from a script you can estimate the length of the movie, but still. They still have to film and spend the budget on way more footage than they need

 

[Drizzle]

But it does add to the expense, and this is a thread about movie budgets.

True but it also depends on the movie.

 

[kguillou]

And MI:7 is important because a lot of the discussion previously was about how the movies just needed to be better. But here is a movie that is highly regarded, and it still isn't making money. There is more going on than just the quality of the films.

Mi:7 is such a fascinating case study because everyone thought that the Top Gun Maverick audience would follow Cruise into this one but apparently not. So what is it about Maverick (a sequel to a 35 year old movie) that got butts in seats (American butts specifically) that MI:7 isnt? They're very similar movies.

 

[MadVillainy]

Mi:7 is such a fascinating case study because everyone thought that the Top Gun Maverick audience would follow Cruise into this one but apparently not. So what is it about Maverick that got butts in seats (American butts specifically) that MI:7 isnt? They're very similar movies.

I would heavily dispute that they're similar movies. Really other than both featuring Tom Cruise and are action movies, they're not similar at all. I don't understand that comparison.

Maverick is way more fun, triumphant, and positive in tone. I've made the comparison a bunch but Maverick feels like a sports movie rather than an action one. It's not nearly as action packed as MI7 or any MI movie.

Also, I'm just gonna basically copy and paste what I posted in the MI thread

TG hadn't been seen since the 80s and that was a novelty to see Maverick show up again after all these years. With MI we've gotten a steady stream of them since GP in 2011 so people were more inclined to see TG. Maverick really had some stuff we hadn't seen before at that level too.

Also Maverick was waaaaaay more of a 4 quadrant movie compared to MI. I know people who don't like action movies who loved Maverick. I know people who hate Cruise and loved Maverick. Maverick is a movie I could take my mom to see and she's very picky with movies, and she'd probably like it. It plays out like a very good sports movie almost.

It's kinda like expecting the Rogue Nation crowd to have showed up for The Mummy in 2017. Or the WW and ST crowd to show up for Pine in Dungeons. That doesn't really happen like that anymore. The IPs are the stars. Not the performers

 

[BeserkerHilf]

Mi:7 is such a fascinating case study because everyone thought that the Top Gun Maverick audience would follow Cruise into this one but apparently not. So what is it about Maverick (a sequel to a 35 year old movie) that got butts in seats (American butts specifically) that MI:7 isnt? They're very similar movies.

It was finally an objectively good legacyquel for Boomers that had enough crossover appeal with their kids, as well as a healthy detachment from the original that avoided being derisive of its place in time, unlike a lot of rebooted franchises do now. Plus, it was released on an American Holiday weekend with plenty of space on premium formats before the new Jurassic World & Lightyear, and a slew of similarly disappointing sequels to steal back those screens.

 

[kguillou]

Solid point @MadVillainy . I think I saw them as "similar" because they were both these high octane, crazy stunt driven Tom Cruise headliner movies that targeted basically the same demographic. Also, I was thinking that MAYBE Maverick "recruited" some Tom Cruise fans--people who didnt care for him before- that would maybe follow him into DR, especially in light of all the positive buzz.

Also, you made the point about the "novelty" of seeing Cruise's Maverick character back after 35 years...why didnt that "novelty" work for Keaton's Batman then? Serious question, because I think its a fascinating discussion about bringing back old characters and whether audiences of a certain generation even care.

 

[MadVillainy]

Also, you made the point about the "novelty" of seeing Cruise's Maverick character back after 35 years...why didnt that "novelty" work for Keaton's Batman then? Serious question, because I think its a fascinating discussion about bringing back old characters and whether audiences of a certain generation even care.

This is gonna be a long winded post but it's a few things

1) There's only one Maverick. True we may have not seen Keaton as Bruce Wayne in years, but we still got 5 versions of Bruce Wayne since Keaton's last appearance. And that's just live action. But there's only one guy playing Maverick which is Tom Cruise so seeing him back after decades was more of a treat

2) Keaton, despite the marketing, was a guest in a Flash movie. Maverick was all about Cruise. And imo Keaton's Batman looked out of place. Like they put him in an environment (more fantastical and bright) that contrasts where he was in B89 or BR. I saw that clip of Keaton fighting a Kryptonian and it looks really weird. Not just because of the CGI but because it looked so out of place for any live action version of Batman, save for Affleck, to be doing that. Maybe it would've been different if it was an actual Keaton returns as Batman movie? But I doubt that because...

3) I think some of us nerds online really just over estimate how much people care about Keaton as Batman. Look, I get it that that's the Batman that a lot of people grew up with. I respect that. But not enough care to seriously boost things. Not to be obnoxious and do the "told ya so" thing, but I know I and a handful of other members say the same thing. I think people are pretty indifferent to him on Batman when you look beyond just online reaction. His last appearance was too long ago and we've had a good amount of live action versions since to varying success. The 18-34 demo cares more about Bale most likely because TDKS came out in their life and was better received. And I think WB knew that and that's why they'd been trying to get Bale back ever since the DCEU started
That's no shots as Keaton or his performance as Batman because I like his portrayal. And this might be anecdotal but I've never heard someone irl say Batman 89 or Batman Returns is their favorite movie like I've heard with TDK. Hell I haven't even heard anyone ever say B89 is their favorite superhero movie irl.
I just don't think Keaton as Batman had enough juice to put butts in seats. For sure didn't have enough juice to overcome a) the DC universe rebooting soon b) bad CGI in trailers, c) Miller's whole controversy
TL;DR: People don't care about Keaton as Batman as much as us nerds do and they make up a significant portion of the movie going audience

 

[Ninjablade]

Also, you made the point about the "novelty" of seeing Cruise's Maverick character back after 35 years...why didnt that "novelty" work for Keaton's Batman then? Serious question, because I think its a fascinating discussion about bringing back old characters and whether audiences of a certain generation even care.

Maverick is a character that hasn't been on screen since the 80s. We've seen multiple movies with Batman in it, including multiple takes that are considered better to Keaton. There's a legit build up of nostalgia for a character there with Cruise returning as Maverick, kind of like the novelty of seeing the Star Wars original trio again for the first time for a lot of people.

Also certainly helps that the characters surrounding Maverick also endeared themselves with audiences in a way the film around Keaton definitely didn't.

 

[kguillou]

Good answers guys

I think thats a pretty good analysis. I fully admit I as a huge Keaton fan (he's my favorite Batman and the one i grew up with) was probably clouded by bias and overestimated how much the rest of the world actually cares about him which given Flash's BO is obviously pretty low. And yes, we've had a steady deluge of live action Batman content since Batman Returns so audiences arent starving to see the dark knight on the big screen like maybe with maverick.

And that also adds another layer to the Mission Impossible argument, MI has put out movies every 4-5 years since the first installment in 1995 so I guess people arent exactly frothing to see yet another Ethan Hunt adventure. The series essentially retained the same people who have been watching the MI films all along.

 

[MadVillainy]

Speaking of MI and bringing things around to the thread topic. Reported budget of 300m about...so you know the actual budget is probably more.

I get COVID costs but damn. At least with MI I can see if on the screen with the set pieces and probably Cruise's insurance costs

 

[Snow Queen]

I believe a portion of the budget is also what they shot for Part 2 so I'm curious what the budget of that one looks like given Atwell's 40% of that movie is shot already estimate.

 

[MadVillainy]

I don't think so but I guess we'll find out because if they weren't filmed back to back then why would they have the budget credited to Pt 1? Pt 1 filmed in 2020-21 and Pt 2 started filming in 2022-23. If they were filmed close to together I'd get it and maybe they picked up some shots during the filming of pt 1 sure, but I think that 40% was largely shot in 2022

 

[kguillou]

Honest question guys, obviously VFX is a hot button and the costs associated but would studios ACTUALLY be saving money by going practical instead of CGI? Obviously, by going practical, theres a ton of costs (and risks) associated with that as well. Lets use M.I. for example, if we were to look at Cruise's cliff dive stunt for example, is it "cheaper" to spend weeks (maybe months) paying stunt crews and choreographers and camera crew to rehearse that stunt over and over until they get it right, or is it actually more cost effective to pay an FX house to just animate a digital Tom Cruise jumping off a digital cliff? We know which one LOOKS better obviously but whats more cost effective?

 

[BeserkerHilf]

Honest question guys, obviously VFX is a hot button and the costs associated but would studios ACTUALLY be saving money by going practical instead of CGI? Obviously, by going practical, theres a ton of costs (and risks) associated with that as well. Lets use M.I. for example, if we were to look at Cruise's cliff dive stunt for example, is it "cheaper" to spend weeks (maybe months) paying stunt crews and choreographers and camera crew to rehearse that stunt over and over until they get it right, or is it actually more cost effective to pay an FX house to just animate a digital Tom Cruise jumping off a digital cliff? We know which one LOOKS better obviously but whats more cost effective?

Point being, when everything is impressive, nothing is. For what it's worth, the M:i series stays relevant in the current landscape because Cruise & McQ keep upping the ante. The appeal is seeing the impossible become possible in a very real and tangible way. If you start CGI-ing everything, then it's no different from the Fast and the Furious.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I have to wonder if putting Part 1 on a franchise's 7th movie is inhibiting ticket sales. Across the Spider-verse was originally labelled as a two parter before retitling Part 2 "Beyond". Those of us Always Online know there is a Part 2 in the works, but the Grass Touchers get to go in without that knowledge. Personally, as much as I want to entertain the thought of going to a theater right now, I'm a father of two toddlers in an area without a premium format screen, nor do we have reliable access to babysitters. It's financially irresponsible to spend that kind of movie to see an intentionally incomplete story.

 

[MadVillainy]

Honest question guys, obviously VFX is a hot button and the costs associated but would studios ACTUALLY be saving money by going practical instead of CGI? Obviously, by going practical, theres a ton of costs (and risks) associated with that as well. Lets use M.I. for example, if we were to look at Cruise's cliff dive stunt for example, is it "cheaper" to spend weeks (maybe months) paying stunt crews and choreographers and camera crew to rehearse that stunt over and over until they get it right, or is it actually more cost effective to pay an FX house to just animate a digital Tom Cruise jumping off a digital cliff? We know which one LOOKS better obviously but whats more cost effective?

It's for sure cheaper to do VFX/CGI which I why they do it. At least that's been my assumption.

With VFX/CGI, it's still difficult and I'm not knocking the artistry there, but:
-You don't have to worry about weather conditions depending on what's being filmed
-You don't have to worry about extensive make up transformations and paying everyone to do or be a part of that
-It's not as dangerous when it comes to stunts
-You get more flexibility with the number of takes, what can be fixed in post, etc.
-You don't have to pay VFX artists as much because their not unionized like stunt people, hair/makeup artists, etc.

So I imagine practical is less cost and time effective

 

[Ninjablade]

Honest question guys, obviously VFX is a hot button and the costs associated but would studios ACTUALLY be saving money by going practical instead of CGI? Obviously, by going practical, theres a ton of costs (and risks) associated with that as well. Lets use M.I. for example, if we were to look at Cruise's cliff dive stunt for example, is it "cheaper" to spend weeks (maybe months) paying stunt crews and choreographers and camera crew to rehearse that stunt over and over until they get it right, or is it actually more cost effective to pay an FX house to just animate a digital Tom Cruise jumping off a digital cliff? We know which one LOOKS better obviously but whats more cost effective?

I mean with the exception of Dead Reckoning, Cruise's films are relatively cheap. This is the first time anything he's ever done has crossed the $200M threshold for a budget.

That said though, the level of practicality of things he does shouldn't be the standard. I don't expect other films to put actors in real cockpits, have someone hang on the side of a plane, or learn how to fly a helicopter. He's certified insane and his dedication to the craft is unique. You don't have to be that though. John Wick Chapter 4 cost $100M and had loads of practical work done that was just enhanced with CG.

The big difference between practical filmmaking and reliance on CG is entirely planning. CG gives these productions as much flexibility as they want. They don't have to meticulously plan every single little detail and keep it that way in order for something to work. Which is really where things lead to being more expensive. There's a creative sense of efficiency that's needed when doing something practical. A lot of the times it might not seem cost effective is because lately a lot of movies double dip, ie Spider-Man's costume.

 

[flickchick85]

The big difference between practical filmmaking and reliance on CG is entirely planning. CG gives these productions as much flexibility as they want. They don't have to meticulously plan every single little detail and keep it that way in order for something to work. Which is really where things lead to being more expensive. There's a creative sense of efficiency that's needed when doing something practical.

THIS is what I’m saying! It’s not the CGI itself that’s raising the costs, it’s the productions using it as an excuse not to properly plan out their films in pre-production that is.

I don’t know if it’s still this way as I haven’t read up on him recently, but there’s a reason Chris Nolan at least used to be one of the few big-budget filmmakers who always came in on-time and on(sometimes even under)-budget: He’s a planner. His films are meticulously planned down to a science. So his budgets are for exactly what they’ll need and when they’ll need it. Spielberg used to be the same way (no idea if he still is either).

A part of the issue is the way the blockbuster production line works now thanks in no small part to the MCU. It used to be, when you got hired to make a film for your studio, you’d go through and break down a script page by page, determine the budget you’ll need and the TIME you’ll need (which is a huge determining factor in the budget, because a lot of stuff is rented and paid for by the hour/day) to make it, and that proposal would either be rejected by the studio or be given the green light and release date based on that. Nowadays, it’s seems like the studios say “here’s your movie, here’s your release date, now start planning whatever you have to do to make it by that date.” So with that way of working, it’s no surprise that shortcuts would become standard in lieu of proper planning and craftsmanship.

Setting a release date before anything else (sometimes not even a script!) on a movie is wild to me. I get why these “interconnected universes” feel they have to do that, but it does not engender the right kind of planning at all imo.

 

[Ninjablade]

THIS is what I’m saying! It’s not the CGI itself that’s raising the costs, it’s the productions using it as an excuse not to properly plan out their films in pre-production that is.

I don’t know if it’s still this way as I haven’t read up on him recently, but there’s a reason Chris Nolan at least used to be one of the few big-budget filmmakers who always came in on-time and on(sometimes even under)-budget: He’s a planner. His films are meticulously planned down to a science. So his budgets are for exactly what they’ll need and when they’ll need it. Spielberg used to be the same way (no idea if he still is either).

A part of the issue is the way the blockbuster production line works now thanks in no small part to the MCU. It used to be, when you got hired to make a film for your studio, you’d go through and break down a script page by page, determine the budget you’ll need and the TIME you’ll need (which is a huge determining factor in the budget, because a lot of stuff is rented and paid for by the hour/day) to make it, and that proposal would either be rejected by the studio or be given the green light and release date based on that. Nowadays, it’s seems like the studios say “here’s your movie, here’s your release date, now start planning whatever you have to do to make it by that date.” So with that way of working, it’s no surprise that shortcuts would become standard in lieu of proper planning and craftsmanship.

Setting a release date before anything else on a movie is wild to me. I get why these “interconnected universes” feel they have to do that, but it does not engender the right kind of planning at all imo.

Exactly. Which while we're talking about it, a lot of this really stems from shooting digitally being the standard for blockbusters. Shooting on film can be expensive for a plethora of reasons, but it forced blockbuster films to be as thoroughly planned as possible. You don't get to just walk onto set knowing you can futz around with the camera because you have unlimited storage to get all the coverage you could possibly need.