Time for Hollywood to Shape Up

[Abbie Normal]

Few things about the cost of this movie: Known American actors tend to ask for more than unknown foreign actors in terms of their paycheck. It tends to cost much more to shoot in the U.S. than it does in most foreign countries, especially places like South Africa. This combined with multiple other factors are why a movie like Transformers costs the amount it does and District 9 the amount it does.

I buy the increased costs of shooting in the United States, but everything else lends itself to the conclusion that people who make movies are making way too much money. It think it has been more than proven that "stars" do not account for as much box office grosses than reported, so they do not deserve the millions of dollars they get. I have neighbors that do various things like cameramen to editing people and they all make a pretty penny. Much more than they really deserve for a few months worth of work.

Perhaps it is high time that what people make to make movies is scaled back a bunch and in turn the cost to see a movie or buy a dvd will go down. Maybe theaters will make a little more profit from the movie itself and lower the costs of popcorn and soda and also cut down on all the fucking commercials I have to see before the trailers start. These are all things we the people who see and buy movies complain about. We are the people who allow all these people in Hollywood to make as much as they do. Maybe it is time we stop supporting Hollywood the way we do until they make some changes.

District 9 (as well as many others) is a movie that was quite inexpensive to make and was still a quality movie with top notch effects. We did not need any stars to act in this movie. I am quite sure South Africa did not have unions bumping up the costs. District 9 should serve as an example to Hollywood that they need to shape up.

[adamjohnson]

I had a post a while back in the filmmaking forum where I wanted to start a movie studio/production company which did not reveal the names of anyone involved in making the movie. No actors, no directors or writers, not even the grip and the bus boy.

The movie would stand on its own, as a piece of art, the way a painting stands in a gallery.

without the burden of stars on either side of the camera, the movie would be entirely untainted, there would be no backstage politics, and the movie would only be judged on a single thing - quality.

It was shot down pretty harshly, but I still believe in it.

[jbar1026]

i agree that costs are out of control but i dont belive it has much to do with how much actors make. lets just pretend that tom cruse was in district 9 and he made 15 mil for his work. and sam jackson was in it but made only 6mil the buget for the movie is still only 51mil. when comparied to transformers 200mil thats silly since it stars shia la..whatever his name is who i doubt makes more than 10 mil a movie. i think that when hollywood starts throwing money around people show up to catch it. they need to be more acountable for their spending when the day is done. like why did it cost 25mil to blow up some sand dunes.

[DaveyJoeG]

I agree with this rant wholeheartedly. I think there is a lot of room to cut the fat on budgets in American films. I've always wondered why actors seem to get away with demanding huge paychecks but there is a huge controversy when a directory like Peter Jackson gets 20 million for directing a film. Then when you watch the Oscars and see a recap of all the technical awards that weren't important enough to land a slot in the actual show, yet they have time to perform the best song nominations through interpretative dance. I think along with directors, editors have the most influence on the flow and tone that a film has, yet they seem to be an afterthought to the general picture-going audience. I think it all comes down the obsession Americans have with celebrities. Until Brad Pitt and Lindsay Lohan start doing sound editing for motion pictures, things will not change.

[ilovemovies]

I buy the increased costs of shooting in the United States, but everything else lends itself to the conclusion that people who make movies are making way too much money. It think it has been more than proven that "stars" do not account for as much box office grosses than reported, so they do not deserve the millions of dollars they get. I have neighbors that do various things like cameramen to editing people and they all make a pretty penny. Much more than they really deserve for a few months worth of work.

Perhaps it is high time that what people make to make movies is scaled back a bunch and in turn the cost to see a movie or buy a dvd will go down. Maybe theaters will make a little more profit from the movie itself and lower the costs of popcorn and soda and also cut down on all the fucking commercials I have to see before the trailers start. These are all things we the people who see and buy movies complain about. We are the people who allow all these people in Hollywood to make as much as they do. Maybe it is time we stop supporting Hollywood the way we do until they make some changes.

District 9 (as well as many others) is a movie that was quite inexpensive to make and was still a quality movie with top notch effects. We did not need any stars to act in this movie. I am quite sure South Africa did not have unions bumping up the costs. District 9 should serve as an example to Hollywood that they need to shape up.


You are living in a fantasy world if you think this will ever happen.

Big movie stars will continue to make millions.

Movie tickets will continue going up or at least stay the same.

Food and beverages will continue to be unreasonably high at movie theaters.


There will always be movies like District 9 where a movie or two will be a huge success that didn't cost much to make. But there will always be movies like Transformers 2. Movie that cost a shitload to make that critics hate and will make a shitload of money at the boxoffice.

This will never change.

[Abbie Normal]

You are living in a fantasy world if you think this will ever happen.

Big movie stars will continue to make millions.

Movie tickets will continue going up or at least stay the same.

Food and beverages will continue to be unreasonably high at movie theaters.


There will always be movies like District 9 where a movie or two will be a huge success that didn't cost much to make. But there will always be movies like Transformers 2. Movie that cost a shitload to make that critics hate and will make a shitload of money at the boxoffice.

This will never change.

First off, this is not just about movie stars. It is about everyone in the movie making chain. They all make way too much money. Secondly, you just don't get it. Movies don't have to cost as much as they do. Third, I don't think what I said will happen. I am just ranting. The sad fact is that things will not change unless people stop paying to watch movies and that is not going to happen with all the piece of shit movies being made and drawing millions of people. The point of my rant is it does not have to be this way. Hollywood has the world believing movies have to cost so much in order to be good. District 9 is a perfect example of my rant.

[LordSimen]

I would just like to say that Transformers not only cost more than District 9 but going by District 9's current intake, Transformers in the end will have made ten times more money than District 9. It's worldwide intake was 826,987,774 and I highly doubt District 9 will come close to that number by the end of it's run. So there's not much incentive here to spend less to make District 9 if District 9 isn't going to get them nearly as much money.

[overwatch]

well theoretically if you spent 30 million and made 120 million which is making roughly double your budget (half of ticket sales will go to the cinemas) and then you spent 200 million and made 800 mil you get the same ratio. It's not that big a difference. District 9 is a lot less effort and is no doubt a lot less of a gamble at 30 million dollars. If you market a moderate budget action movie well, it's not hard to make back your budget.

[LordSimen]

well theoretically if you spent 30 million and made 120 million which is making roughly double your budget (half of ticket sales will go to the cinemas) and then you spent 200 million and made 800 mil you get the same ratio. It's not that big a difference. District 9 is a lot less effort and is no doubt a lot less of a gamble at 30 million dollars. If you market a moderate budget action movie well, it's not hard to make back your budget.

Except the profit you're getting from the 30 million picture adds up to 90 million, while the profit you gained from the 200 million dollar picture adds up to 600 million. There's really no comparison at that point.

[Abbie Normal]

I do not understand the comparison of costs for TF2 and D9. I am sure TF2 could have been made for less money and that is the point.

[jbar1026]

Except the profit you're getting from the 30 million picture adds up to 90 million, while the profit you gained from the 200 million dollar picture adds up to 600 million. There's really no comparison at that point. well 30 x 3 = 90 and 200 x 3 = 600 so the comparison is there. but i doubt you could make a movie like D9 for less but transformers costs could have been cut creating more profit! also who is to say that a movie that costs 30 mil can only make 120! its also highly possible that a movie like transformers could total bomb. and if a movie is going to bomb as a studio i would rather it didnt cost 150mil +

[MisterChristian]

I do not understand the comparison of costs for TF2 and D9. I am sure TF2 could have been made for less money and that is the point.

True enough. I laugh when Michael Bay boasts he came in four million dollars under budget. Yet spent ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SIX MILLION DOLLARS...on that.

Same can be said for G.I. Joe. $175M?!? Definitely could have been made for less.

But, this trend in Hollywood will never change. Same goes for sports. It's a business, plain and simple.

:)

[Jon Lyrik]

Except the profit you're getting from the 30 million picture adds up to 90 million, while the profit you gained from the 200 million dollar picture adds up to 600 million. There's really no comparison at that point.

Well, also remember marketing costs. $200 million is only the production budget for Transformers. The marketing budget? $150 million, worldwide. Studios only get half the gross in North America, closer to a third internationally. So with its international run about as done as its domestic run, it's basically about...$25 million behind breaking even now, and I'm assuming Bruckheimer, Bay and LaBeouf don't get cuts out of the raw grosses. Video and TV will be healthy for it (though that requires marketing too), though, and merchandising, of course.

That doesn't really matter in terms of the perception of it as a hit, though. It's still #1 for the year, and is likely to stay that way.

District 9's heading for about $125 million in the US. I'm not sure about the international take, but considering how it's a decidedly non-American flick, I think a 50/50 split is rational. The $30 million budget is probably moot, depending on the contract Sony had with QED Int, as it was produced by QED, Sony simply distributed it. I'm guessing a $80 million marketing budget worldwide, which means it can earn a $20 million profit in the end. Video, TV will be gravy.

Thing is, though, it's less the point. What people are wondering is if spending gigantic sums is really necessary or even advisable if a $30 million project uses effects with even more novelty or creativity than a $200 million gargantuan, and can end up just as profitable if not moreso in the long term anyway even without a PG-13 rating, a merchandise push or a LOT of marketing.

[bigred760]

Yeah, the "perfect world" scenario. I don't see why you think Hollywood needs to shape up when you say it's the people that are paying good money to watch these bloated, big budget flicks.

[CyclicNightmare]

First off, this is not just about movie stars. It is about everyone in the movie making chain. They all make way too much money.
No we don't.

[mutesaint]

No we don't.

Yeah....we don't. Not at all.

[Abbie Normal]

No we don't.

yeah, ya do.

[someguy]

No, they don't. It's common knowledge that the underlings and people on the lower rungs get horribly underpaid for their work, I don't know where you're getting this idea that they're paid lavishly.

[mutesaint]

yeah, ya do.

Trust me. we don't. I work my ass off at multiple different gigs and none of them pay well. Sure, if your Michael Bay's DP you earn some nice bank, but even then your talking a fraction of a fraction of what the Bayster or any one of the stars earn.

[mutesaint]

Well shit. He got gone. I was hoping to continue this developing 'discussion' with him and figure out where these thoughts were coming from.