DEBATE: The Alamo - $135M or $70M ?

[Bstanley]

According to the Wall Street Journal this morning Disney is in a quandry.

Ron Howard's requirements to do 'The Alamo' are a $135M budget, a piece of the gate from ticket #1 on, and an 'R' rating (he believes showing the 'violence' graphically is needed to tell the tale).

Disney wants a $75M budget, a guarantee of a PG rating - and they don't want to give Ron a piece of the gate until the production costs are covered.

So what's your opinion?

[Sarangel]

Doesn't this seem like the flip side of the arguement that we have here all the time - ie. the suits don't want to give directors/imagineers enough money to create what we all believe them capable of?

If I were making the decision, I'd give him his budget and tell him he could have his percentage after production costs were covered. If he belives in his project enough, that would be fair. As far as the rating goes, I'd prefer (as a producer) to see what it looked like to determine if the R rating was necessary.

Sarangel

PS. I read an article the other day about how incredibly profitable G rated movies were, on the whole. I wonder if anyone in Hollywood read it?

[raidermatt]

Regarding the violence...

I'm not a fan at all of gratuitous violence. However, there are movies that call for some rather graphic violence in order to tell the story the way it should be told.

I picked up the director's cut of Pearl Harbor (I like the movie, so sue me...). The extra features are great, there's a timeline segment that is over an hour long and traces Japanese/American relations for the 100 or so years leading up to Pearl Harbor. Excellent piece. The interactive battle sequence allows you to view the scene from a camera that is filming the action from another angle (including the other cameramen, diretor, etc), view computer animation of the scene, and even sketched animation. You can view all at once, or use one option for the full screen. Very cool.

Anywho, with regard to the dc version of the film, I expected an extra scene or two, but did not expect the graphic violence that was "added back" into the battle scene. This was some graphic stuff, and, for me anyway, it put a much different tone on the battle scene. Imagine the Normandy landing portion of Private Ryan without the graphic scenes, and I'm sure you can see how much that would have taken away from the picture the filmaker was trying to portray. Same thing with Pearl Harbor. I know, that doesn't take care of the other problems many people had with the movie, but it DOES make a positive difference.

I can see the same with the Alamo. We've seen the steralized versions of the Alamo, just as we'd scene them of D-Day and Pearl Harbor. I believe Howard is correct in wanting to make a movie that portrays the battles as they truly were. Doing so makes the audience realize that these men went through more than most of us had imagined, and that while sometimes a necessary evil, war should never be thought of lightly.

I'm sure there's room for compromise, but PG will NOT tell the tale, and while $135 million might be too steep, $75 is definitely too low for the type of story that should be told.

Disney shouldn't just give in to every demand 100%, but they should meet Opie more than 1/2 way.

[Another Voice]

The buzz is that Mr. Howard has already walked off and been given a producer’s credit (so that he still gets a nice chunk of money), but his involvement with the film is over and done with. Sets are currently being constructed in Texas and it’s unclear if that will continue. Mr. Howard brought in John Sayles (probably best known for ‘Eight Men Out’ and a gifted film maker for smaller films) and it looks like that script will get tossed as well. According to the buzz, the script was a broader than just the Alamo; more focused on the characters than one the battle scenes. The storyline was how rather selfish men came together and became caught up in a great cause, and how that changed them.

As for Mr. Howard’s commercial appeal – ‘A Beautiful Mind’ and ‘The Grinch’ are considered major commercial successes. He’s known as a good director that can make good films with artistic merit (like ‘Apollo 13’) and one that can make money as well.

The ‘Alamo’ movie itself is just one of Disney’s attempts at the Big Summer Blockbuster Game. Since they lack the nerve to go out and buy a property, the Big Historical Event is the cheapest way of finding a “pre-sold” concept. It was pushed forward in exactly the same way that ‘Pearl Harbor’ was pushed through and you can see the black-clad creative executive sipping the bottled water as he says “it will be just like ‘Titanic’ but with guns and explosions and action ****. It can’t miss”.

Once again, Disney has learned nothing from ‘Princess Diaries’ and ‘The Rookie’.

As for the rating – Hollywood knows full well that PG-13 is the rating you want for the highest box office. Ever since the crack down on children getting into “R” movies there’s been an effort to cut films to a lower rating. I’m involved in a few rating issues at the moment myself and all of them are driven by pure economic factors. In one case the film has been seriously weakened by the cuts (they didn’t involve violence or sex, just the tension level of the movie overall).

In my personal opinion – war is not a “PG-13” activity. Making combat “pretty” for a lower rating is an insult both to the audience and to the soldiers.

[AKemel]

The rating of a movie has nothing to do with content.
War is not R rated event. There are no ratings to describe a war. The emotions and horror of loss of life can be delivered in G rated movie (i.e. Bambi and Lion King). R rating is a cheap and unimaginative make to substitute for good story.

[barreloflaughs]

Frankly, I'm glad Richie left.

For the life of me I cannot understand why you keep referring to Opie as 'Richie'.

barrel of laughs

[YoHo]

Richie?
Opie?

I thought he was Steve Bolander?


//Lucas Geek.

[Another Voice]

The way things are going, $135 million is not out of line for a major tent-pole movie. It’s about the cost of ‘Spider-man’, ‘Attack of the Clones’, ‘Matrix Reloaded’ and the rest of next year’s crop.

The flaw is that Michael wants to play with the big boys churning out ‘Austin Powers’, ‘Men in Black’ and all the other high-profit/low-content movies. It’s just that Michael really is bad at that kind of thing and he’s thrown Disney into a very weak middle position of doing cheap blockbuster movies. Those big summer instant-hits require a lot of stuff thrown up at the screen – while $135 million may be too much for the ‘Alamo’, $80 million is definitely too little for the kind of spectacle that will compete against ‘The Hulk’.

Yes, Eisner should concentrate on ‘Sixth Sense’ scale films, but they don’t have the flash and the instant synergy/profit/happy meal potential that Eisner wants to throw at stockholders (and his own ego). He hates small films because he doesn’t think they do enough to boost the company’s “brand image” and somehow he thinks it’s better for the company to have one movie gross $500 million rather than five movies that gross $100 million each. That’s his logic, not mine.

As for buying rights fees – how is the $2 million they dropped on ‘Wonderdog’ any better of an investment than going after something good?

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Chad,

I like the way you constantly jump on the rest of us for "bashing something before we see it," but you get to compare a $70 million unmade movie to a $135 million unmade movie and expect us to believe your conclusion is anything other than your own wild-assed guess.

Howard had a creative vision... that's the first step in quality getting made.

Disney has a budgetary vision... that's the first step in a hack job getting made.

You're arguing that they should build the movie equivalent of DCA instead of the movie equivalent of TDS.

The good news for you is that Disney is certain to give you the cheap hack job you appear to desire. Enjoy!As soon as Disney starts buying up existing properties with huge rights fees, well, that's when they start doing it just because others are doing it. You mean like they bought Pokemon? You mean like they bought the Power Rangers?

Or is it just the pricey licenses that can actually draw a crowd, like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings that you think Disney should avoid... while the licenses that lost relevance sometime last decade are Scoop-approved purchases?He may have saved Disney some serious cash by doing so. Has the phrase "if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right" lost all meaning whatsoever?

I know a way Disney could save another $70 million on this project, if the only thing you're concerned about is "saving cash."

-WFH

[Another Voice]

“If I had the confidence that Disney could do a good job with Lord of the Rings type material I might say otherwise. But, I don't so I say don't do it.”

Actually, Peter Jackson developed ‘Lord of the Rings’ at Miramax using Disney’s money to do so. The movie you saw last year and the next two sequels are pretty much the same movie that he would have made for Disney.

Except that Michael Eisner refused to approve the budget for the films. The entire project was dumped (in its entirety) to Warner’s New Line division. Disney had their chance at a mega-hit for both box office and quality, but a single executive was scarred/greedy and spoiled the entire thing.

It’s not that Disney is incapable of making good movies; it’s that they simple aren’t allowed to do so.

[airlarry!]

AV:

My head is spinning about now, but I think what you are saying is that Disney should not be concerned with the bottom line, but instead should focus on the quality of the project?

As in Shaggy Dog III equals low quality, but Peter Jackson's trilogy and the vision he showed before the pictures were even made should have been supported?

In other words, stop worrying about making money off a certain segment...instead look for movies with quality and spend the right amount of money to do 'em and promote 'em.

Right? I mean, we keep debating around here whether or not Disney should get involved with the big summer blockbuster, or look at getting old properties a la Spidey & Shaggy, or look at the mediumsized PG movie or whatever....but you don't seem to advocate pinning Disney down to one stereotype, right? Or do you?

[Another Voice]

The strategy is simple – find good scripts and spend the amount of money to make a good movie. Spending money on a bad story isn’t going to make it good and neither is taking a good story and starving it for money. It would have been very easy to see from the scripts from 'Shaggy DA' and 'Lord of the Rings' which film should have been supported.

My feelings are that ‘Alamo’ is a good movie that Disney is trying to make on the cheap and will ruin it. ‘Pearl Harbor’ was a really bad story that tired to substitute cash for talent. Both approaches are recipes for disaster. There’s nothing inherently wrong with big movies or small movies – but there is a difference between good movies and bad movies.

Disney’s current plan is to make ‘Lord of the Ring’ sized movies on a budget for ‘The Rookie’. That approach can work, but it’s highly risky and requires tremendous dedication and determination from the filmmakers. Disney simply can’t get that level of work out of people. Upper management is far too intrusive into making movies and their ideas are based only on increasing profits, not on making a better film. And Disney no longer trusts the quality of its own people. There is absolutely no way ‘The Sixth Sense’ would be made today – the story and surprise twist are too risky for the every-film-a-blockbuster mentality.

The reason why ‘Sixth Sense’, ‘Princess’ and ‘Rookie’ worked was because Disney stayed out of the process. They stayed out because so little money was at stake. Until Disney’s management is straightened out, I think it’s better they produce small movies that won’t attract the attention of tall executives who pretend they know about film.

As for the summer blockbuster, do them right or don’t do them at all. There’s nothing wrong with making an ambitious movie IF the story is worth the effort. But the current thinking is that money is only for marketing, not for the film. Eddie Murphy isn’t getting all those millions of dollars for ‘Haunted Mansion’ because he would make a good movie, it’s because his films have become a brand name to a pre-sold audience.

Yes, even Disney is not confident that its own brand will sell movie tickets these days.

[Bob O]

I can smell what the Walts head is cooking!!
Disney needs to make big budget adult type films. Why cant the company make something like Gladiator/Saving Private Ryan/Beautiful Mind instead of kids movies like the rookie/princess diaires. I would much perfer the big budget film done properly than something like Reign of Fire or a film made alot better like Pearl Harbor was which Ron Howard has shown he can easily do.

[Walt's Frozen Head]

My point is that Disney shouldn't spend $135 million on anything. As AV pointed out, Disney isn't good at that type of project. Disney doesn't make anything, creators make things. Disney talked to a respected, successful creator who said "I can do that for $135 million." Disney said "we'd rather get someone who can slap something together for under $70 million."

I believe even you've made the point "it's not the money spent, it's what you spend it on." In this case, they had a choice between $135 million for a project envisioned and spearheaded by a guy who has spent his life creating these projects from some end or other, and $70 million for a project envisioned by accountants and spearheaded by God-knows-who, that they hope will deliver the results they weren't able to get from the $200 million Pearl Harbor.Where in the blue moon do you get me bashing something I haven't seen? Read the quote again. I never said you bashed anything you hadn't seen, I said you compared the quality of two things you hadn't seen, and arrived at a conclusion. Arriving at a qualitative conclusion before one sees the product concerned is the root issue, not whether one chooses to ***** or to brownnose based on that speculative data.many people consider the similar concept in Pearl Harbor as being a failure. I don't consider the projects to be equivalent just because the price tags are in the same arena and they're both based on something that really happened. Bruckheimer and Bay blew stuff up, Howard develops characters.Don't just come around every once and awhile looking for a fight and cussing at me. If my post drives you to the point of doing that, try emailing or PMing me first to make sure you got my take right. If you did and still feel the necessary to call me half-assed, well, that's fine. As it turns out, I require no prior approval from you to post. And your implication here is wrong, I did not call you "half-assed," I called your specualtion that a $70 million Alamo was inherently superior to a $135 million Alamo a "wild-assed guess." I stand by my assessment of your speculation, and I don't really care anymore if you can't or won't discern between my addressing your posted points and addressing you, personally.I'm not asking for Disney to put out crap as you apparently took my post. I cited the Rookie, the Others, Princess Diaries, and Sixth Sense as the type of movies Disney should concentrate on rather than huge budgeted blockbusters. In the context of this thread, you've derided the thought of $135 million on a movie and advocated $70 million as better. Of course, you don't know whether the $70 million Alamo will be a character-driven Princess Diaries or a blow-'em-up Pearl Harbor wannabe. As far as can be determined by your posts, you chose the cheaper route because it was cheaper, without knowing what creators would be involved or what direction the film would take.

Disney should put everything they have into their $70 million movies and their $135 million movies. Your posts have indicated only that the cheaper was inherently better than the more expensive, and that's a crock. Disney is as capable of hiring people to make a bad $70 million movie as people to make a bad $135 million movie.I'll take 5 Princess Diaries in place of one huge 100 million plus film. Just because the price tag is the same, you can't assume a movie is going to have the quality of Princess Diaries.

Disney turned away an established, respected creator at $135 million in favor of an unknown quantity at $70 million. I say the respected creator would be likely to do well with the $135 million project. You seem to disagree, apparently purely on the basis of "$135 million" being a bigger number than "$70 million."

I would advise going with the life-long creator with the artistic vision, whether that meant $70 million or $135 million.

You appear to advise going with the budget target, without ever considering the creators who will actually contribute more than a PO approval to the project. I don't think expected price tag is a good indicator of the success or failure of a movie.

That's my point. That's all my point is!

-WFH

PS: Chad, here's a little lesson on "personal." If I say "your conclusion is... your own wild-assed guess," that means I'm talking about the statement you posted: fair game. Now, if you say "You didn't even take the time to understand my point," or claim that I "come around every once and awhile looking for a fight," then you are speculating about me personally; my thoughts and motives: personal shot.

See the difference?

Your choice which direction we go from here. You know I'm willing to get dirty if that's the way you want it. Personally, I think there's plenty to talk about without going that route, but I know you've disagreed with me on that in these kinds of situations, before.

[Planogirl]

Before this thread is closed, which appears inevitable, I have to ask why it's necessary to bash Ron Howard? He was a child actor a long time ago and has been a successful director for quite a while now. I don't see why he couldn't make a good version of The Alamo. And maybe I'm biased but I don't particularly care to see a shoddy, cheaply done version of OUR story. If it's going to be done, please do it right.

I noticed a comment that only James Cameron should be allowed huge budgets for films. But not George Lucas, Spielberg and now Peter Jackson among others? It's a good thing that they were allowed such a big budget for Spiderman! I definitely must have misread the comment. :confused:

Anyway, $ 135 million does seem a BIT high but I thought that these things were usually negotiated?

[rpink58]

I believe you can make a good war picture for 70 million. I was involved with the upcoming civil war picture Gods and Generals and the budget on that picture was around 60 million. The budget was kept down by using reenactors. Supposedly they plan on using reenactors for the Alamo too.

[airlarry!]

Planogirl:

Just curious, but have you checked out the IMAX Alamo movie in San Antonio? I know that is not exactly next door to Plano, but it is a decent little movie if you get a chance.

[Grog]

The budget was kept down by using reenactors. Supposedly they plan on using reenactors for the Alamo too

True. The word has already gone out to the Texas Rev War groups. I got an e-mail from a friend about a month ago as a group of us "Anglos" are putting together a Mexican Soldados impression for TRW events (the Texians usually outnumber the Mexicans by about three or four to one at events here so we decided Mexican was the way to go). I won't be making an attempt to be an extra as my work schedule won't allow me the time :(

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Bob O
I can smell what the Walts head is cooking!!
Disney needs to make big budget adult type films. Why cant the company make something like Gladiator/Saving Private Ryan/Beautiful Mind instead of kids movies like the rookie/princess diaires. I would much perfer the big budget film done properly than something like Reign of Fire or a film made alot better like Pearl Harbor was which Ron Howard has shown he can easily do.

They have and can..They are just never labeled under the Disney Brand. That is what Miramax and Touchstone are for....too bad it's been a while since the last one. What was that “Good Will Hunting”…5 years. Come on guys get your act together and make a good movie.

[Another Voice]

Jerry Bruckheimer had ‘Black Hawk Down’ in development to be made as a Disney/Touchstone film (budget around $80 million). After several rewrites of the script, Michael Eisner decided he didn’t like the politics of the movie and told Bruckheimer to take a walk. Mr. Bruckheimer, after the disaster of ‘Pearl Harbor’, was happy to oblige and took the movie to the one of the people Eisner had fired as studio head. The rest of the story ends with a hundred million dollars in profit to Sony and a big development write-off at Disney.

[Bob O]

Europa the sad thing is the current management wouldnt know a blockbuster if it hit them in the face. They will waste alot of money making pearl harbor and then turn down the chance to make a movie like Lord of the Rings or a great movie like Black Hawk down, maybe eisner didnt want to have a moive made that would reflect badly on his hero clinton!

[rpink58]

Grog,
They paid us $100 a day plus food and lodging. If you get a chance do it. What a great time.

[Grog]

Would love to but just don't have the time. I have friends who have been extras in more movies than I can count and they keep me updated in the hopes I can make it someday.

[Planogirl]

Just curious, but have you checked out the IMAX Alamo movie in San Antonio? I know that is not exactly next door to Plano, but it is a decent little movie if you get a chance

AirLarry, I've seen it and it's surprisingly good IMO. I hope that WDW can make their version as good if not better no matter what the budget is.


maybe eisner didnt want to have a moive made that would reflect badly on his hero clinton

:rolleyes:

[Another Voice]

If anyone is interested, a positive review of the John Sayles script for ‘The Alamo’ can be found at http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/365/365074p1.html . The review also includes the expected castings (prior to Ron Howard walking out) with Russel Crowe as Sam Houston, Billy Bob Thorton as Davy Crockett, Ethan Hawke as William Travis and Viggo Mortensen as Jim Bowie.

The review praises the screenplay for the way it treats the very complex characters in a very complex situation: “These rebels are flawed, ordinary men engaged in this revolution for a variety of reasons, ranging from pure self-interest to the political. Their disunity makes them more interesting because it shows just how close the Texas Revolution came to failing. It's a testament to the screenwriters that these characters can be so gritty and offensive without alienating the spectator.”

As an example, here’s how Davy Crockett comes off – “I enjoyed the way Davy Crockett was depicted here. He was not the larger-than-life folk hero often portrayed onscreen. He wasn't the whimsical backwoodsman played by Fess Parker or the jingoistic living legend The Duke presented. This Crockett was a simple man trapped by his own celebrity. Jim Bowie seems to see right through Crockett. There's one nice scene between the two where it becomes apparent that Bowie may be more of the "real deal" than Crockett. But David, as he prefers to be called, is a more introspective soul than Bowie and seems to understand human nature better. At one point, he reveals to Bowie that he could flee the Alamo but that "Davy Crockett" never could. Fame seals Crockett's fate.”

It sounds like an interesting read, too bad Disney’s gone and trashed it. Also in the review is the rumor that the writer/director of ‘The Rookie’ has been brought in to give Disney the all-action, all-fighting movie that Disney is now demanding.


P.S. – There were many changes made to the ‘Black Hawk Down’ script to avoid mentioning Washington’s role in the battle. Michael’s politics are very well known around town.

[Planogirl]

Disney will need to walk a fine line with this one. I suspect that the largest turn-out will naturally be in Texas since Texans seem to historically flock to anything that tells this story. And while it's certainly good to be accurate, showing the characters as TOO flawed might just rattle a few cages around here.

The story sounds quite compelling so far though so I'm certainly hopeful. And heck with the reviews, I'll be there to see this one (IF it ever gets made :rolleyes: ).

[Another Voice]

Well, Sony gave Sam Rami $135+ million and he didn’t do to badly with it. Before ‘Spider-man’, the guy’s credits were basically ‘A Simple Plan’, ‘Evil Dead’ and being the brother of that weird guy on ‘Xena’.

Conversely Disney gave Michael Bay $135 million. That guy already had a portfolio of big budget, big return movies like ‘Armageddon’ and ‘The Rock’ under his belt, yet he turned out the stinker ‘Pearl Harbor’.

The big difference is that Mr. Rami has talent – ‘Simple Plan’ and even ‘Evil Dead’ were good, if small, movies. Sony took a chance that he’d be able to handle the budget. Mr. Bay, however, made two brainless excuses for lots of explosions and will best be remembered for the animal cracker scene in ‘Armageddon’ (the first time a cookie has been more compelling than either lead actor). Disney bet that they didn’t need a good movie, they just needed more explosions – Michael Bay was there man. That’s exactly what they got.

And, according to the rumors, that’s what the current tussle over ‘The Alamo’ has come down to. Mr. Howard wants to make a good movie; Mr. Eisner wants a lot of brainless explosions. It’s a simple battle between the mind that gave us ‘Apollo 13’ (an epic on a human scale) and ‘Pearl Harbor’ (fuel explosions set against some nice scenery).

Frankly, I saw ‘Reign of Fire’ and I’m rather bored by explosions now.

[Bob O]

All the people mentioned by dscoop i would let them spend 135 mil. to produce/make a movie if i felt it was a compelling movie that would be done well. From what AV posted it seems like another big mistake by disney which is the norm and not the exception.

[Walt's Frozen Head]

that’s what the current tussle over ‘The Alamo’ has come down to. Mr. Howard wants to make a good movie; Mr. Eisner wants a lot of brainless explosions. This seems to me to be the root of the mistake on Alamo: whether they expect to sell meat or sizzle. Whether it ends up being $70 million worth of sizzle or $135 million worth of sizzle, I don't expect to get much meat on the Alamo's bones, now that Howard's gone.

That's the crux of why I'd go ahead and front Opie the big bucks; the guy's done some meaty stuff over the last, say, four decades or so.

A couple years from now we might be able to look back and give a definitive summation, but at the moment, I'm sticking my neck out to say that $135 million of meat is a better investment than $70 million of sizzle... in the same way I'd stick my neck out to say that $70 million of meat is a better investment than $135 million in sizzle; in the same way I feel TDS represents $3 billion of meat vs. DCA representing $1 billion of sizzle.

-WFH

PS: I don't mean to ignore the turn the thread has taken, but I feel lists of directors wouldn't add much. To be honest, Howard wouldn't have been on my version of such a list, if I had to write it from scratch: I'd simply never have thought of him. I actually don't care much for his stuff, personally, but I respect his work ethic and life-long dedication to his craft, and I think we all have to admit he has created a compelling and successful body of work. Those are the characteristics I'd want to see in the folks making movies for me.

[Bstanley]

I was wondering how many 'blockbuster' movies have actually been successful so I looked at the US box Office for all the movies that had a published budget of more than $100M on 'The Numbers' website.

I left off all movies that are still in release because who knows how much they will make. This 'punished' Sony and 20th Century Fox (Spiderman, Minority Report and Clones).

That left 39 movies that had a published budget of $100M or more.

30.8% of them lost money (12)
17.9% of them made from from 0 to 19% profit (7)
12.8% of them made from 20% to 49% profit (5)
17.9% of them made from 50% to 99% profit (7)
15.4% of them made from 100% to 199% profit (6)
5.1% of them made from 200% to 275% profit (2)

Prior to this year Sony and Warner Bros were basically tied at zero - they hadn't really made any money overall on their 'blockbusters' - the losers equalled the winners. Obviously with Spiderman Sony is now in the black. Warner Bros did so well with Harry Potter last year that they overcame their Wild Wild West and AI deficit.

20th Century Fox knows how to make blockbusters - Titanic and the Star Wars movies really make their numbers incredible. But they have had their clinker - Speed II.

New Line is 'perfect' - 1 for 1 with LoTR :-)

Disney is in the middle of the pack - profitable, but less than 25% overall.

Interesting idea though - I have read that US Box Office only represents one third of the money that a movie will make. Another third comes from Overseas Box Office, and the final third comes from Video/DVD rentals.

This would indicate that ALL movies with a budget greater than $100M made money with a single exception - 'Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within'.

So if that's true Disney should just cut the check for Ron H. and turn him loose - they can't lose!

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Bruce,

Interesting numbers.

Is it possible to get all the titles? Particularly for the eleven other stinkers, and maybe the top eight that made over 100% profit?

I'm curious to see how if my own assessment of whether a movie was/was not a high-quality endeavor correlates at all to how much money they made.

-WFH

[Another Voice]

Wow – data dump on the boards, dude!

The numbers you are looking at, both the budgets and box office takes are examples of Hollywood accounting at their finest. And Hollywood has spews out more lies than Enron execs swapping stock tips with the guys from Worldcom.

On the budget side, it’s always better to inflate the budget is you’re working on a small budget movie. In Hollywood, the more money you control equals the more power you wield. Working on a hundred million movie is a higher status than working on an eighty million flick.

Unless the buzz about the movie is bad. Then you want to show how well you’ve spent the budget and how prudent you are with the corporation’s money. Worse yet is when the budget for the movie becomes a news story in its own right (in a bad way). The budgets for both ‘Titanic’ and ‘Dinosaur’ are low balled on the list for just that reason.

It’s also a question of where the money goes. Sometimes, as in ‘Titanic’ and ‘Dinosaur’, the movie really does cost huge sums of money just to make the movie. Other times the money goes to big name “talent” that really has no bearing on the film itself. An average “A” list start pulls $20-$25 million per movie these days. Add to that co-star salaries based on that, a director that needs parity, and pay-offs to the stars cronies & handlers. It is very easy for a major big budget movie to spend more than half of their budget before a single set is designed, a single costume is sewn, or a single frame of film is exposed.

To go along the big stars, most also get a percentage of the box office take as well. These costs do not show up in the film’s budget but can amount to ten of millions of dollars on every movie. The story around town is that Jack Nicholson’s deal on the first ‘Batman’ that the movie will never turn a profit. Ever.

Once again – it’s how the money is spent that’s important. Look way down the list and you’ll see ’20,000 Leagues Under the Sea’. That was the most expensive movie filmed up until to that time (mostly because of all the underwater work). That turned out pretty well. And no one is going to argue that there was a dime not well-invested in ‘Titanic’.

Spending $70 million or $135 million on ‘The Alamo’ isn’t as important unless people have already decided the movie is going to tank or have no intention on making a good movie in the first place.

[KNWVIKING]

...Or does any one else out there lack interest in movies we all know the ending to ? Titanic,Pearl Harbor,Apollo 13,etc. Now the Alamo. I guess I have a hard time trying to get involved with a story I learned about in history class 30 years ago.

[Bstanley]

AV,

Is it true that a good rule of thumb for a movie's income is that it's a third from domestic box office, a third from overseas income and a third from Video/DVD sales/rentals?

And if so - it really looks like all of these big budget movies made a fair amount of money - some of them amazing amounts of money. Pick a so-called money loser like Waterworld. It cost $175M to make and only generated $88M in domestic box office. Adding in the overseas box office and the Video/DVD would give it more than $80M in profit...

Or are the published numbers so untrustworthy as to be unusable??

[Another Voice]

There isn’t yet a really good rule of thumb about a movie’s total take. The world has really changed over the last ten years.

‘Waterworld’ and ‘A.I.’ were both domestic flops that were huge hits overseas. ‘Family Man’ was a so-so domestic movie that went huge on home video. Big action films with big stars do far better overseas than domestically, comedies do much better in North America. Big box office hits tend to do well on video, but it’s no where near a guaranteed thing since the advent of DVD.

And the money that flows into a studio is even more difficult to compute. Domestically, the rule of thumb is that half of the box office goes to the studio. But with skewed contracts, backend deals and multi-studio financing each movie is different. And in the overseas market, many times a studio will pre-sell the rights to a film to raise the production money. None of the foreign box office takes comes back to Hollywood. In home video, you’ve got distributors, retailers, mass marketers, pay-cable sales and dozens of other people with their snout in the trough.

Figuring out how much profit a specific movie made for a specific studio without direct inside information is nearly impossible.

[Bob O]

The fact i know the ending doesnt matter in the least!!! I like to see how the movie is made and how it is done. I knew how titanic was going to end but the movie itself was still excellant while i knew how Pearl Harbor ended but was surprised how the battle scenes were so good but the rest of the movie was so awful.
And im sure Av knows more but if what i have read in the papers is right that Hollywood has tryed to claim that moives that sold hundred of millions of dollars worth of tickets actually lost money in a attempt to dent paying actors money based on the movies profits.

[Bstanley]

Figuring out how much profit a specific movie made for a specific studio without direct inside information is nearly impossible.

Oh Drat, oh well - I guess I can dump those massive pivot tables then and use the hard drive space for more vacation pictures... :-)


But KNWVIKING - a good story has a beginning, a muddle, and an end. First off - I would hate to miss all the great beginnings and muddles just because I know the historical ending to a particular battle. Secondly - who knows when the movie will end? Maybe the movie ends at San Jacinto. If I were telling the story of The Alamo that might be how I would do it.

[daber]

Just read that Disney in order to reduce production costs has named a new director, (the one who directed The Rookie) who commands only a six figure salary, rather than Ron Howards millions.