Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[DavidTyler]

I see the 'leap' in look/feel being more due to the increased availability of technology, but not in actual talent, which is much more important. With more availability and affordability also comes less discipline. There's something to be said about things being harder so that the better/more resillient ones make it through. It still doesn't change how studios/unions/labor costs operate, nor does it stave off inflation. As for salaries for people like Pitt or what have you.....their asking prices go up because they generate more money in product sales etc. with their involvement....it's not a measurement of moral value or what not...like compared to a schoolteacher or social worker. If someone has a problem with that, then they should go after professional athletes/developers/etc as well...and the overall modern condition that sustains that, rather than looking at just movies.

I know and I understand. I just think that there are probably some Spielbergs and Lucas's out there learning how to use prosumer stuff in ways that others aren't.

And I'm not really denigrating that Pitt and co have a right to a big payoff since they only work on usually one film every other year... but there are also probably stars out there looking for their big break that would fit the parts as well.

When I was in the process of shooting my Batman fan film, there was a guy I met doing construction that would have been my choice for Bruce had I not already cast someone. And he was an aspiring actor.

 

[KalMart]

I know and I understand. I just think that there are probably some Spielbergs and Lucas's out there learning how to use prosumer stuff in ways that others aren't.

Well if that's the case....why stiff'em in the budget department of they get a shot at Superman? t: If a Lucas/Spiels/Cameron in their prime got $250M to do one of their movies and it turned out as well as we would expect in that case....would we be complaining that they should have done it for cheaper? Just be glad that we don't have to pay higher ticket prices for movies that cost more to make than others.....like it is with most other products in the world.

And I'm not really denigrating that Pitt and co have a right to a big payoff since they only work on usually one film every other year... but there are also probably stars out there looking for their big break that would fit the parts as well.

Then that's for them to worry about, not Pitt or whoever else were lucky enough to make it big.

When I was in the process of shooting my Batman fan film, there was a guy I met doing construction that would have been my choice for Bruce had I not already cast someone. And he was an aspiring actor.

Keep his number in case you have to reboot. Heh...

 

[KalMart]

There is a lot of wasteful spending in our society in general. Movies are no exception. I think that we may find that this trend WILL bring about the end of the way many industries operate.
If you produce enough lower budget movies that generate huge grosses, then the studios will do those more often, and try to make their blockbusters that "have" to have large budgets follow suit (eventually....at first they would just make fewer of them).
Also in comics, eventually the higher costs will force the publishers to hire less expensive talent, buy less expensive materials, and/or just go to digital, etc, because no one will pay $10 per issue.

I'm just saying that you can only sustain excess for so long before something has to give. Look at the recent/current recession.

I don't know about comics, but "going digital", if you will, for films doesn't really make things less expensive when it comes to finishing/mastering and distributing for wide release in theaters etc., though. The people who do that work still have to get paid what they're owed, their equipment/facilities still cost the same to operate/maintain, theater bills for electricity/concessions still cost the same, marketing to get the word out for the movie still costs the same per hour, and so on. You're not going to get someone going from Laptop/iMovie to worldwide multiplexes in one step.


But in all seriousness....if you were going to shoot a feature film on prosumer HDV as opposed to, say, 35MM...and go with existing locations rather than building sets etc...possibly cutting SHOOTING costs from, say, $50M to $20M....if you still wanted to make anything resembling a large gross on that, you still have to pay much the same rates to master and distribute it as you would if you shot it on 35MM. So more would have to change in order to really capitalize on 'lower-budget' stuff. Maybe make movies only available online to save on distribution, then charge less for entrance/viewing fees and hope you'll get much more people to pay for it than would actually go to theaters. And when all is said and done...how good is this thing that was shot 'on the cheap' going to look compared to something that wasn't? How much of a blockbuster-type movie can you really capture for less than half of what it would 'normally' cost?...and get the kind of interest that a blockbuster attracts, IF you're looking to make a blockbuster...as oppose to an 'artsy-indie'? Lot more things would have to change radically, than just the cost of getting it in the can.

 

[Kal-El Fan]

The digital remark was meant for comic books specifically.

 

[KalMart]

The digital remark was meant for comic books specifically.

I know, which was why I specifically pointed out that I was going to use the terminology for film for the purpose of the overall conversation.....seeing as the topic of 'shooting cheaper' is what's actually propelling the discussion.

 

[Kal-El Fan]

As to your other comments, cost control starts with things that you can in fact control. As you said, you can control what you pay for equipment, sets and even talent. Rates for things like processing is somewhat controllable, as are marketing expenses, though I agree there is a certain amount of expense involved in getting things to a level where you are able to generate interest/ticket sales to get a sizable return. Also "lower budget" is relative and I was really talking BB vs SR type of comparison. As I believe you mentioned earlier, the budget of Transformers didn't make the audience appreciate it any more or less, but I bet the studio loved it, the same with the relative gross of BB vs. it's budget.

I was really commenting on waste in a general sense.

 

[Kal-El Fan]

I know, which was why I specifically pointed out that I was going to use the terminology for film for the purpose of the overall conversation.....seeing as the topic of 'shooting cheaper' is what's actually propelling the discussion.

Gotcha.

 

[KalMart]

As to your other comments, cost control starts with things that you can in fact control. As you said, you can control what you pay for equipment, sets and even talent.

To an extent...and if you're lucky enough to find cheaper aspiring talent that will somehow generate the kind of appeal that more established ones will. But you also run the risk of running into union/city/location issues is you're doing something more substantial than, say, two people in an apartment. So again, it comes down to what exactly you're trying to make and achieve. A small indie picture...or something larger?

Rates for things like processing is somewhat controllable, as are marketing expenses, though I agree there is a certain amount of expense involved in getting things to a level where you are able to generate interest/ticket sales to get a sizable return. Also "lower budget" is relative and I was really talking BB vs SR type of comparison. As I believe you mentioned earlier, the budget of Transformers didn't make the audience appreciate it any more or less, but I bet the studio loved it, the same with the relative gross of BB vs. it's budget.

They wouldn't have loved it if it tanked. Nine figures is f'in nine-figures!

Budgeting also has to do with so much more than just the physical amount...who can put up/secure certain amounts, hence have real control and stake in it, etc. Look at how lucas did things....he was able to secure merchandising rights with SW before they ever really meant anything (with the possible exception of Planet Of The Apes). Then made enough off of that and whatever his take was on the first one to finance the second one himself. If he couldn't find a way of making the film for the amount that they could put up, then he'd have to give up some ownership/control to get the extra investment, and so on. I that respect, he could have gotten more money for the budget, but it would have cost him more than just gross/net. And that has almost nothing to do with saving the studio money...it was more about him and what he was trying to build and maintain.

I was really commenting on waste in a general sense.

Yes, but that waste is indicative/result of a lot more conditions that film is just a part of. It's not like making movies cheaper to make will lead the way. You want to make movies cheaper to produce across the board...make energy, labor, taxes, and the cost of living cheaper first. Sounds simple enough, no?

 

[Kal-El Fan]

Oh yeah, wicked easy! :P
If you think about it, that was a big problem with the US automakers. They were paying their union workers so much in wages and benefits, (in addition to other things) that they couldn't compete anymore. It's definitely a system wide kind of problem and there really is no easy fix.

Again, I was just saying something will give sometime. For now it will probably be studios focusing more on lower budget rom/coms and such, and making fewer/taking their time when it comes to more expensive films.

 

[KalMart]

Oh yeah, wicked easy! :P
If you think about it, that was a big problem with the US automakers. They were paying their union workers so much in wages and benefits, (in addition to other things) that they couldn't compete anymore. It's definitely a system wide kind of problem and there really is no easy fix.

Again, I was just saying something will give sometime. For now it will probably be studios focusing more on lower budget rom/coms and such, and making fewer/taking their time when it comes to more expensive films.

If anything....they'd be forced into it by bigger losses, rather than motivated by its possible upsides. And if the next POTC/Spidey/Transforemers/TDK comes out with similar returns, don't expect them to be running en masse under the nine-figure fence for these kinds of movies anytime soon. You wanna win in high-stakes poker....you gotta put up high stakes, yo?

 

[The Guard]

Re: This $50 million Superman movie thing...

I'm basically just kidding around with David. I'm not a director, and I know squat about budgeting, but I'm reasonably certain a lot of people could write a script that could be made into a Superman movie for that amount.

It just wouldn't be what anyone considers mainstream. There'd be a LOT of talking, shooting around things, etc. But hell, even Bryan Singer shot around some things in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

I've wanted to write a Superman indie film project for years, because I'd make one with relatively little action, and a LOT of exploring the concept. I had a script called SUPERMAN: SALVATION that was just that.

A Superman movie need not be nonstop action, in other words. But it's all about keeping up with the Smiths.

 

[KalMart]

Re: This $50 million Superman movie thing...

I'm basically just kidding around with David. I'm not a director, and I know squat about budgeting, but I'm reasonably certain a lot of people could write a script that could be made into a Superman movie for that amount.

It just wouldn't be what anyone considers mainstream. There'd be a LOT of talking, shooting around things, etc. But hell, even Bryan Singer shot around some things in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

I've wanted to write a Superman indie film project for years, because I'd make one with relatively little action, and a LOT of exploring the concept. I had a script called SUPERMAN: SALVATION that was just that.

A Superman movie need not be nonstop action, in other words. But it's all about keeping up with the Smiths.

Make it a story about Superman being held hostage by some bank-robbers who somehow got a hold of black-market kryptonite. There are four or five of them, each having to take shifts standing guard while the others have to go out and ditch cars, get new clothes, and figure out how they'll launder the money they stole. But each gangster decides to talk to Supes while he's bound...one on one...and each has a story as to how Supes somehow turned them towards a life of crime...something in their childhood (assuming Supes has been around that long), or for some more recent. And we see short flashbacks for each of the crooks from those pivotal moments, but primarily from their perspective...Supes doesn't appear much in full frame...more like the aftermath or wake left in his presence. But then we also see Superman's recollection of those events...and it becomes a sort of Roshomon comparing the two perspectives for each. Not too much crazy flying/action effects...just enough to get the situation.

By the end, through each conversation, he's made each crook change their outlook on the matter...and when they're all there with him, he simply stands up and breaks his bonds....he could have at any time because the black-market Kryptonite they got was crap......'cut-down' like cheap drugs until it was so diluted as to be nearly inert. It'll show Superman not only bringing crooks to justice by putting them in jail, but caring that they understand the errors of their ways...and in this case, he was willing to sit with them and talk it through by fooling them into thinking they had him dead-to-rights. Make the brunt of the story take place over one day in an abandoned warehouse....get two pretty well-known indie actors attached, shoot it on the RED and edit/finish in Apple FCS.

$45M, tops.

 

[The Guard]

There's no reason that should cost $45 mill. Unless you're planning to build a genetically perfect actor to play Superman, and to skim more than a little off the top. .

 

[KalMart]

There's no reason that should cost $45 mill. Unless you're planning to skim more than a little off the top. .

Gotta have some digital effects, green-screen/gimbal work after principle.

 

[The Guard]

The hell is a gimbal?

 

[KalMart]

The hell is a gimbal?

http://www.wetanz.com/holics/media/Superman/flying_rig.jpg

See that big apparatus holding him up? Those things don't come cheap.

That's if we want any reasonably close shots of him flying, of course.

 

[Showtime]

I noticed some have brought up Neil Blomkamp of District 9 fame to tackle a new Superman flick. Funny that he actually worked on Smallville as a 3D Animator.

 

[KalMart]

Was he in charge of the red blur or the blue blur?

 

[Showtime]

He's actually responsible for the black slicker and t-shirt glare.

 

[Webhead2006]

hmm he did work on smallville didnt know that.

 

[what_19]

well alot of money could be saved or used more wisely by having a very clear vision from the very beginning, and sticking to it. not shooting $10 million dollar scenes only to just shelve them. if you have an idea for a movie, then get the script right first. figure out exactly what you want to do, and then do it. make sure its tight and then dont waver. i understand that little things like some dialogue or perhaps the shifting of scene order is always in order, but something of that magnitude just isnt cool. especially when that $10 million could have been the difference between a sequel.and this mess we're in

 

[Webhead2006]

I agree what 19 everything need to be tight and in total order before they roll any film so things are not wasted and time is spent wisely.

 

[JAK®]

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

Singer always complained about the small budgets Fox gave him for the X-Men movies. But he managed to make great movies.

WB gave him 200 Million+ for Superman Returns and he was very frivolous in his spending. He lost track of what the movie was originally about, and the movie suffered.

Sometimes limitations are a good thing, especially for artists.

 

[JAK®]

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

Singer always complained about the small budgets Fox gave him for the X-Men movies. But he managed to make great movies.

WB gave him 200 Million+ for Superman Returns and he was very frivolous in his spending. He lost track of what the movie was originally about, and the movie suffered.

Sometimes limitations are a good thing, especially for artists.

 

[BlackLantern]

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

Singer always complained about the small budgets Fox gave him for the X-Men movies. But he managed to make great movies.

WB gave him 200 Million+ for Superman Returns and he was very frivolous in his spending. He lost track of what the movie was originally about, and the movie suffered.

Sometimes limitations are a good thing, especially for artists.

I agree fully...especially filmmakers who spend most of their careers working with low budgets, you give them a ton of money and they go overboard....look at George Romero...he gets a ton of money for 'Land of the Dead' and it sucks...then he goes back to his roots with 'Diary of the Dead' and IMO was one of the better zombie movies of the last few years