One $300 Million dollar movie or 300 $1 million dollar movies?

[Alien Anal]

I have been thinking lately how cinema could possibly become exciting once again and thought wouldn't it be great if instead of making One $300 Million movie that Hollywood makes 300 $1 Million movies.

When studios aren't putting in so much money into one movie they are able to take bigger risks also the artists often have to get quite creative to be able to create their vision with a limited budget.

Am I crazy for thinking such things? I dunno, but I think its a fun idea.

 

[mclay18]

Can't we split the difference? I'd rather see ten $30M pics, rather than one $300M tentpole or 300 $1M films.

We're already seeing a deluge of microbudget and Blumhouse-model pics around $1M-$5M apiece. And looking at the latter, a lot of them nowadays tend to be hit-and-miss, even with creative leeway given to the directors.

We're seeing a real dearth of mid-range budgeted pics around $30M-$80M apiece. It's either spending pennies or the whole house on a studio pic most of the time.

 

[Alien Anal]

Can't we split the difference? I'd rather see ten $30M pics, rather than one $300M tentpole or 300 $1M films.

We're already seeing a deluge of microbudget and Blumhouse-model pics around $1M-$5M apiece. And looking at the latter, a lot of them nowadays tend to be hit-and-miss, even with creative leeway given to the directors.

We're seeing a real dearth of mid-range budgeted pics around $30M-$80M apiece. It's either spending pennies or the whole house on a studio pic most of the time.

Hah yeh you can split the difference.. The main idea is that studios stop putting so much into these giant blockbusters that a lot of the time end up failing and are forgotten about 2 weeks later and instead create more films for less. I just think it would be fun if there were 300 $1m movies.

 

[spiderman2]

but 1 million is like nothing these days you cant even play the actors or actress for just 1 million lol

 

[DeadPresident]

Nightcrawler's budget was under $10m, it's possible to make compelling movies for much less than what most people think a movie costs.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If every studio put out 300 movies the market would be oversaturated and most movies would be completely ignored.

 

[Wildcard]

but 1 million is like nothing these days you cant even play the actors or actress for just 1 million lol

Not true, the first Insidious movie was made for $1.5 million so it's very possible to make movies for that amount.

Not all actors are paid millions of dollars, let alone hundreds of thousands. It varies.

 

[Heretic]

Most of my favorite movies every year are indie films. I just randomly checked the budget for Coherence, one of my favorite movies from last year, and apparently the budget for that was $50,000 (from what I hear, shot in 5 days with no script). I liked a couple of blockbusters as well (The Winter Soldier, Guardians) but films like Honeymoon, Housebound, Starry Eyes etc are great movies that I wish I could've seen in a theater...while most of the "blockbusters" are movies that I'm really glad that I waited for the DVD to watch.

 

[Alien Anal]

but 1 million is like nothing these days you cant even play the actors or actress for just 1 million lol

Well screw those guys, this idea isn't about keeping George Cloony's pockets full its about making films.

Think of all the original ideas and unknown actors that can come forward because of something like this. There will obviously be quality control but studios no longer have to be afraid of taking risks and can stop flooding us with Reboots, sequels and prequels.

*not directed at you Spiderman2* From my time here I have come to notice a lot of Hypers talk like greasy pony tail suits instead of artists and creators.

This isnt intended as a dig but just something to discuss.

 

[spiderman2]

Not true, the first Insidious movie was made for $1.5 million so it's very possible to make movies for that amount.

Not all actors are paid millions of dollars, let alone hundreds of thousands. It varies.

I now it varies but 1 million is still like nothing. Even comdy movies with like no CGI or action cost like 30 million to make.

 

[dude stannis]

Even spread?

One $100 million flick.
Two $50 million flicks.
Three $20 million flicks.
Twenty to forty $1 to $5 million flicks.

 

[mclay18]

but 1 million is like nothing these days you cant even play the actors or actress for just 1 million lol

You wouldn't get someone, like say, Meryl Streep or Denzel Washington to do a microbudget film. Now there are plenty of underutilized actors and actresses (even some TV names) who will work for scale, provided they liked the script. Now you'll have the rare big actor that likes the script enough that they'll either defer their usual payday and work for scale, and get a backend deal.

Nightcrawler's budget was under $10m, it's possible to make compelling movies for much less than what most people think a movie costs.

See above. It's also who the behind-the-scenes talent knows, and whether they'll do something for a friend or family member. For Nightcrawler, the director was married to Rene Russo, and so he was able to get his wife to appear.

And for the low-budget Chef, RDJ and ScarJo did the film as a favor to director Jon Favreau. I think it was RDJ's attachment (even in one small scene) that got Chef greenlit.

 

[Victarion]

A 1 million dollar movie might be interesting in the SFF genre. A return to the sort of SFX used in the Star Wars OT or the various old Harryhausen "Dynamotion" effects for creatures could be a breath of fresh air in a CGI heavy genre of film.

 

[mclay18]

A 1 million dollar movie might be interesting in the SFF genre. A return to the sort of SFX used in the Star Wars OT or the various old Harryhausen "Dynamotion" effects for creatures could be a breath of fresh air in a CGI heavy genre of film.

It would have to be centered on one location, innovative and be extremely cost-effective i.e. Primer. As much as I dislike a lot of Blumhouse productions, you have to admit they're going back to basics and give directors leeway, provided the productions stay below a certain budget threshold ($1M-9M) and that the premise of the movie is marketable enough for a nationwide release. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I would love to see a mid-budget movie embrace the old-school VFX style by doing 95% of it in-camera with little to no CGI involved.

 

[dude stannis]

It would have to be centered on one location, innovative and be extremely cost-effective i.e. Primer. As much as I dislike a lot of Blumhouse productions, you have to admit they're going back to basics and give directors leeway, provided the productions stay below a certain budget threshold ($1M-9M) and that the premise of the movie is marketable enough for a nationwide release. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I would love to see a mid-budget movie embrace the old-school VFX style by doing 95% of it in-camera with little to no CGI involved.

This is why I'm always willing to give Direct to Video movies a shot. In camera action scenes, no CGI and physical locations.