Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted May 9, 2003 show me a good movie that cost $70 million to make, and i'll show you 20 great movies whose combined costs don't equal half that. i'd rather have 20 great movies than one good movie. The big movies of the 40s & 50s would cost a hell of a lot more than modern movies if they were done today. Even moreso for the big epics of 60s. Lawrence of Arabia could not be done today. It would simply cost too much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted May 10, 2003 show me a good movie that cost $70 million to make, and i'll show you 20 great movies whose combined costs don't equal half that. i'd rather have 20 great movies than one good movie. The big movies of the 40s & 50s would cost a hell of a lot more than modern movies if they were done today. Even moreso for the big epics of 60s. Lawrence of Arabia could not be done today. It would simply cost too much. Well that's not completely true. Hollywood wouldn't be able to manage it, but they still could do it if they weren't stuck in the mindset that good "epic" movies must have a huge budget. If they weren't totally concerned with every movie being bigger than life and everything being super hi tech. They could do it if they used the "independent" filmmakers mindset where they scretch every dollar as far as it can go and if they took the low tech approach. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted May 10, 2003 show me a good movie that cost $70 million to make, and i'll show you 20 great movies whose combined costs don't equal half that. i'd rather have 20 great movies than one good movie. The big movies of the 40s & 50s would cost a hell of a lot more than modern movies if they were done today. Even moreso for the big epics of 60s. Lawrence of Arabia could not be done today. It would simply cost too much. not true. first of all, all the major studios have either been bought out by larger companies or diversified so much that they have lots more capital to work with than they ever did before. second, i honestly can't imagine 'lawrence of arabia' costing more than 'waterworld' or 'titanic'. and i can't think of any "big" 40s movies off the top of my head. they generally didn't make movies like that in the 40s, they cranked out heaps of tightly budgeted pictures. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted May 10, 2003 Somtimes Blockbuster movie's are good. show me a good movie that cost $70 million to make, and i'll show you 20 great movies whose combined costs don't equal half that. i'd rather have 20 great movies than one good movie. Titanic, Cast Away, Harry Potter(Both), Lord of the Rings(both), Monsters Inc, T2, Toy Story 2, Saving Private Ryan, Signs, Gladiator, X-Men(both), Lion King. 15 movies that cost atleast $70 million, were considered blockbusters, and were good movies. There are good blockbusters out there that cost a lot of money to make. Yes, it is nice to have movies that don't cost that much but make a lot of money. However, one of the reasons why the budget is high for movies is because of the asking price for a lot of stars. Plus, a movie that makes money, makes stars, makes household names, makes more money later on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted May 10, 2003 Somtimes Blockbuster movie's are good. show me a good movie that cost $70 million to make, and i'll show you 20 great movies whose combined costs don't equal half that. i'd rather have 20 great movies than one good movie. Titanic, Cast Away, Harry Potter(Both), Lord of the Rings(both), Monsters Inc, T2, Toy Story 2, Saving Private Ryan, Signs, Gladiator, X-Men(both), Lion King. 15 movies that cost atleast $70 million, were considered blockbusters, and were good movies. There are good blockbusters out there that cost a lot of money to make. Yes, it is nice to have movies that don't cost that much but make a lot of money. However, one of the reasons why the budget is high for movies is because of the asking price for a lot of stars. Plus, a movie that makes money, makes stars, makes household names, makes more money later on. pulp fiction, $8 mil fargo, $7 mil reservoir dogs, $500k monty python and the holy grail, $500k the 400 blows, $80,000 (in the 50s, which comes out to maybe $1 mil today if you're generous) bob le flambeur, $50,000 (see above) the war zone, >$1 mil amelie, ~$2 mil la jetee (don't have the figures on it, but chris marker barely even used any film stock for it--so i can't imagine it cost any more than $30,000) boys don't cry, $2 mil welcome to the dollhouse, $800k in the company of men, $25,000 a dozen movies whose combined costs equal a quarter of the budget of any of the movies you mentioned. and i'd rather see one of these movies any day. the point is, YOU DON'T NEED A LOT OF MONEY TO PRODUCE A SUCCESSFUL MOVIE. good movies are HARDER to make with a huge budget, because then every source of money has a hand in it, & it gets harder to keep it unified. you don't need stars or developmental deals or CGI effects to create interest in a movie. there's enough free advertising out there ('entertainment tonight', talk show circuit, the lifestyles section of the paper) that you can create your own hype out of thin air and spend virtually nothing on marketing. and why have 15 successful movies that are good when you can have 150 successful movies that are at least as good? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NaturalBornThriller4:20 Report post Posted May 10, 2003 "911" Starring Will Smith & Ben Affleck. Coming Soon... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cover of Darkness Report post Posted May 11, 2003 If we go be adjusted for inflation lists then Titantic isn't even Number 1, Gone With the Wind is. In that case, NOTHING will ever top Gone With the Wind, because they re-released it to theaters a million times, and now we have video. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest HellSpawn Report post Posted May 11, 2003 My vote goes to Star Wars. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted May 12, 2003 Somtimes Blockbuster movie's are good. show me a good movie that cost $70 million to make, and i'll show you 20 great movies whose combined costs don't equal half that. i'd rather have 20 great movies than one good movie. Titanic, Cast Away, Harry Potter(Both), Lord of the Rings(both), Monsters Inc, T2, Toy Story 2, Saving Private Ryan, Signs, Gladiator, X-Men(both), Lion King. 15 movies that cost atleast $70 million, were considered blockbusters, and were good movies. There are good blockbusters out there that cost a lot of money to make. Yes, it is nice to have movies that don't cost that much but make a lot of money. However, one of the reasons why the budget is high for movies is because of the asking price for a lot of stars. Plus, a movie that makes money, makes stars, makes household names, makes more money later on. pulp fiction, $8 mil fargo, $7 mil reservoir dogs, $500k monty python and the holy grail, $500k the 400 blows, $80,000 (in the 50s, which comes out to maybe $1 mil today if you're generous) bob le flambeur, $50,000 (see above) the war zone, >$1 mil amelie, ~$2 mil la jetee (don't have the figures on it, but chris marker barely even used any film stock for it--so i can't imagine it cost any more than $30,000) boys don't cry, $2 mil welcome to the dollhouse, $800k in the company of men, $25,000 a dozen movies whose combined costs equal a quarter of the budget of any of the movies you mentioned. and i'd rather see one of these movies any day. the point is, YOU DON'T NEED A LOT OF MONEY TO PRODUCE A SUCCESSFUL MOVIE. good movies are HARDER to make with a huge budget, because then every source of money has a hand in it, & it gets harder to keep it unified. you don't need stars or developmental deals or CGI effects to create interest in a movie. there's enough free advertising out there ('entertainment tonight', talk show circuit, the lifestyles section of the paper) that you can create your own hype out of thin air and spend virtually nothing on marketing. and why have 15 successful movies that are good when you can have 150 successful movies that are at least as good? Yeah, but out of all those movie's you mentioned, were any of them blockbusters? Nope, except for Pulp Fiction which made $107.9 million. Movie companies want to make money, so they put out a lot of money to make money on the movie. It is that simple. I understand what you are saying, but that won't change the movie companies minds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted May 12, 2003 and now we have video. It's box office...video doesn't count. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted May 12, 2003 It should count thought, along with DVD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted May 12, 2003 Somtimes Blockbuster movie's are good. show me a good movie that cost $70 million to make, and i'll show you 20 great movies whose combined costs don't equal half that. i'd rather have 20 great movies than one good movie. Titanic, Cast Away, Harry Potter(Both), Lord of the Rings(both), Monsters Inc, T2, Toy Story 2, Saving Private Ryan, Signs, Gladiator, X-Men(both), Lion King. 15 movies that cost atleast $70 million, were considered blockbusters, and were good movies. There are good blockbusters out there that cost a lot of money to make. Yes, it is nice to have movies that don't cost that much but make a lot of money. However, one of the reasons why the budget is high for movies is because of the asking price for a lot of stars. Plus, a movie that makes money, makes stars, makes household names, makes more money later on. pulp fiction, $8 mil fargo, $7 mil reservoir dogs, $500k monty python and the holy grail, $500k the 400 blows, $80,000 (in the 50s, which comes out to maybe $1 mil today if you're generous) bob le flambeur, $50,000 (see above) the war zone, >$1 mil amelie, ~$2 mil la jetee (don't have the figures on it, but chris marker barely even used any film stock for it--so i can't imagine it cost any more than $30,000) boys don't cry, $2 mil welcome to the dollhouse, $800k in the company of men, $25,000 a dozen movies whose combined costs equal a quarter of the budget of any of the movies you mentioned. and i'd rather see one of these movies any day. the point is, YOU DON'T NEED A LOT OF MONEY TO PRODUCE A SUCCESSFUL MOVIE. good movies are HARDER to make with a huge budget, because then every source of money has a hand in it, & it gets harder to keep it unified. you don't need stars or developmental deals or CGI effects to create interest in a movie. there's enough free advertising out there ('entertainment tonight', talk show circuit, the lifestyles section of the paper) that you can create your own hype out of thin air and spend virtually nothing on marketing. and why have 15 successful movies that are good when you can have 150 successful movies that are at least as good? Yeah, but out of all those movie's you mentioned, were any of them blockbusters? Nope, except for Pulp Fiction which made $107.9 million. Movie companies want to make money, so they put out a lot of money to make money on the movie. It is that simple. I understand what you are saying, but that won't change the movie companies minds. do at least a little research: 'monty python & the holy grail', 'reservoir dogs', 'the 400 blows', and 'amelie' were all huge hits. reservoir dogs i'm sure has more than recouped its cost on video sales alone (not to mention merchandising), ditto for holy grail. the 400 blows was one of the 3 top-grossing movies from france that year, and amelie is the second-highest grossing french movie of all time. while we're at it, why not throw 'swingers' in there, which came to be a hit through steady video sales, and 'the blair witch project', which made over $150 million on ticket sales alone? my point still being that you don't need a huge production budget to make a successful movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted May 12, 2003 If you want to make a list combining Box Office and video go ahead, but the official list should only be box office. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted May 12, 2003 do at least a little research: 'monty python & the holy grail', 'reservoir dogs', 'the 400 blows', and 'amelie' were all huge hits. reservoir dogs i'm sure has more than recouped its cost on video sales alone (not to mention merchandising), ditto for holy grail. the 400 blows was one of the 3 top-grossing movies from france that year, and amelie is the second-highest grossing french movie of all time. while we're at it, why not throw 'swingers' in there, which came to be a hit through steady video sales, and 'the blair witch project', which made over $150 million on ticket sales alone? my point still being that you don't need a huge production budget to make a successful movie. Are you smoking crack??? When was Monty Python a hit?? You shouldn't talk when telling me to do some research: Monty Python and the Holy Grail: $1.8 million Reservoir Dog: $2.8 million Swingers: $4.5 million I can't even find how much Amelie and The 400 Blows made. Those are hits? Wow, I didn't know 2.8 million was a hit. Video sales don't count either, if you did that, then blockbuster movies would of made even more money than the smaller budget films. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest fazzle Report post Posted May 12, 2003 According to Box Office Mojo, Amelie made $33 million, but on a $13 million budget, not $2 million. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted May 12, 2003 do at least a little research: 'monty python & the holy grail', 'reservoir dogs', 'the 400 blows', and 'amelie' were all huge hits. reservoir dogs i'm sure has more than recouped its cost on video sales alone (not to mention merchandising), ditto for holy grail. the 400 blows was one of the 3 top-grossing movies from france that year, and amelie is the second-highest grossing french movie of all time. while we're at it, why not throw 'swingers' in there, which came to be a hit through steady video sales, and 'the blair witch project', which made over $150 million on ticket sales alone? my point still being that you don't need a huge production budget to make a successful movie. Are you smoking crack??? When was Monty Python a hit?? You shouldn't talk when telling me to do some research: Monty Python and the Holy Grail: $1.8 million Reservoir Dog: $2.8 million Swingers: $4.5 million I can't even find how much Amelie and The 400 Blows made. Those are hits? Wow, I didn't know 2.8 million was a hit. Video sales don't count either, if you did that, then blockbuster movies would of made even more money than the smaller budget films. my bad on the 'amelie' budget, bad source of information. and why does video not count? are we in some magical universe where the studio makes no money on video rentals and sales? do you think they'd release a special edition of RD with 4 different covers if it hadn't already proven to be a moneymaker? do you think they would've bothered with a re-packaging & re-releasing of 'holy grail' if it hadn't proven to be a moneymaker? IMDB box office figures are not the be-all, end-all of moneymaking. my point still being that you don't need a big budget production to make a lot of money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kahran Ramsus Report post Posted May 13, 2003 Video SHOULD count, but it doesn't. That's just the way the industry works. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted May 13, 2003 do at least a little research: 'monty python & the holy grail', 'reservoir dogs', 'the 400 blows', and 'amelie' were all huge hits. reservoir dogs i'm sure has more than recouped its cost on video sales alone (not to mention merchandising), ditto for holy grail. the 400 blows was one of the 3 top-grossing movies from france that year, and amelie is the second-highest grossing french movie of all time. while we're at it, why not throw 'swingers' in there, which came to be a hit through steady video sales, and 'the blair witch project', which made over $150 million on ticket sales alone? my point still being that you don't need a huge production budget to make a successful movie. Are you smoking crack??? When was Monty Python a hit?? You shouldn't talk when telling me to do some research: Monty Python and the Holy Grail: $1.8 million Reservoir Dog: $2.8 million Swingers: $4.5 million I can't even find how much Amelie and The 400 Blows made. Those are hits? Wow, I didn't know 2.8 million was a hit. Video sales don't count either, if you did that, then blockbuster movies would of made even more money than the smaller budget films. my bad on the 'amelie' budget, bad source of information. and why does video not count? are we in some magical universe where the studio makes no money on video rentals and sales? do you think they'd release a special edition of RD with 4 different covers if it hadn't already proven to be a moneymaker? do you think they would've bothered with a re-packaging & re-releasing of 'holy grail' if it hadn't proven to be a moneymaker? IMDB box office figures are not the be-all, end-all of moneymaking. my point still being that you don't need a big budget production to make a lot of money. I guess it is just mis-communication because I was just talking about box-office sucess, not video/DVD sucess. If you count video/DVD, then the movies who made a lot of money in the box-office also made bank when it comes to video/DVD sales. Yes, it doesn't take a lot of money to make a good movie. However, most of the time when a movie does well in the box-office, it is because the movie company spent some money on it to make it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted May 13, 2003 Yes, it doesn't take a lot of money to make a good movie. However, most of the time when a movie does well in the box-office, it is because the movie company spent some money on it to make it. No, most of the time when a movie does well at the box office it means they spent a lot of money or marketing. I don't think spending money makes a good movie at all and it certainly doesn't make a hit. If money made hits there would be a lot less bombs in this world. Is that the Core standing up? Oh, look over there it's The Time Machine. If Hollywood spent LESS money there would be MORE hits because movies wouldn't have to make so much money to become hits. Let's pull out the much hated Pearl Harbor. That movie made 200 MILLION DOLLARS. But it's considered a failure because it cost 211 to make and market. There is something very wrong with the business when a movie can make 200 million dollars and and still be 11 million in the hole. Memento on the other hand was made for 9 and made 25. It made over twice it's budget back. That's a hit to me and it didn't cost much. Everywhere you look movies are being made with 70, 80, 90, 100 million dollar budgets. I don't think that was the case even 10 years ago. In the past 10 years budgets have gone haywire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Grand Slam Report post Posted May 13, 2003 I agree, in general, that budgets are over-inflated. God knows if they could make LOTR (all three) for like $150 million American they could have made Pearl Harbor (just as an example) for less than $200 million. However, just like all big budget movies are not bad (LOTR, Star Wars, Jaws) not all small budget movies are good. My best example? "Trees Lounge" the epic Steve Buscemi project that is the worst movie I've ever seen. As far as what will break Titanic's record? It will be something with the same crossover appeal. Something that will get the geeks (cool special effects, well-known director), the norms (go see whatever is advertised and looks ever vaguely good), the women (romantic stuff), the men (death, boobies) and a couple of critics calling it good. And, much to my chagrin, there is no way it will be Star Wars... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
