
Kill the Blockbuster - treitnauer
http://blog.kylemeyer.com/post/20139494197/kill-the-blockbuster
======
smackfu
"the bottom line is that it’s never been more difficult for filmmakers to get
an original story made"

On the contrary. With affordable HD gear and computer editing, it's never been
easier for a filmmaker to make their movie themselves. Compare to 20 years
ago, where Kevin Smith could barely afford to buy and develop grainy black-
and-white film on a $30 grand budget.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I think it's more accurate to say it's never been more difficult for
filmmakers to get an original story made that requires 10s of millions of
dollars to bring to life.

Studios have definitely gotten more conservative on the upper end, and the
middle is nearly non-existent compared to the past.

~~~
andjones
What stories require 10s of millions of dollars to bring to life?

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance of the film industry. But, what stories
_require_ 10s of millions to make?

~~~
davidw
This says Toy Story had a budget of 30 million dollars.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Story>

~~~
anamax
> This says Toy Story had a budget of 30 million dollars.

How much would it cost today?

Yes, animation has gotten better, but is state of the art animation always
necessary? How much less does it cost to be a generation (or two) behind?

Suppose that Toy Story was first-released today, with its ancient animation.
Who would care, and how does that affect box-office?

------
geoffschmidt
There is a serious flaw in this analogy. It costs tens of millions of dollars
to make a Hollywood blockbuster, and you don't find out if it was money well
spent until opening weekend. But a couple of unemployed software developers
can test out a startup idea for a few thousand dollars, and very plausibly get
to millions of users or ramen profitability in a few months if the idea is
good.

The incentives are totally different. So even if we agree that consumer media
internet startups are becoming formulaic (I sure don't), this isn't the reason
why.

~~~
pfraze
Maybe they're not, but man was the SXSW show floor depressing.

~~~
trafficlight
For someone who wasn't there, can you elaborate?

~~~
pfraze
Yeah, I just wasn't very inspired. They were all companies I've known, or
undifferentiating copies of companies I've know.

On the plus side, I was encouraged about the odds of getting funding.

------
noonespecial
"It’s too risky. It doesn’t test well in focus groups. It’s not made for
everyone."

Oh how I want to see movies that are not made for everyone.

~~~
eostyx
How many good 'Hacker' movies have there been?

Better yet, has there been any good hacker movies, ever?

The only movie I liked wasn't remotely "hacking" was the first Matrix. It was
mostly some pop terminology sprinkled through it. Much like all Hollywood
interpretations of what hackers actually do.

It's hilariously actually.... Spinning 3D cubes to hack into some database,
while the actor looks like he's playing an awesome game of minesweeper on
flaming tits that emit crummy (inappropriate) pop music.

*enhances image resolution above what it's original source res is... Badazz >.>

~~~
jseliger
Pirates of Silicon Valley was okay, and I liked _The Social Network_ , even if
it bears the same resemblance to Facebook's actual history that _Lord of the
Rings_ does to the actual Middle Ages.

But your overall point is well-taken.

~~~
waterlesscloud
I thought Anti-Trust was ok. It's pretty Hollywood, but the core ideas were
pretty good.

~~~
nitrogen
Miguel de Icaza had a cameo in Antitrust. The computers are all running Gnome
on Linux. A few decisions are made by characters that wouldn't be made by an
actual engineer for the sake of dramatic tension, but overall, it is highly
realistic as far as Hollywood goes.

------
cnorgate
Well said. Silicon Valley has created this perception that everyone should be
trying to go for the next big blockbuster... of course, that what the VC
community would like everyone to do. Because they can only make money on
blockbusters - they can't make money on the scale or time horizons of a more
modest growth business.

Don't believe the hype.

------
RandallBrown
Silicon Valley to Hollywood is a good analogy.

Can non-blockbusters in Hollywood make money like they can in the valley?

~~~
vellum
Yes, they can. There are a lot of examples in this quora post:
[http://www.quora.com/What-movies-cost-the-least-to-make-
but-...](http://www.quora.com/What-movies-cost-the-least-to-make-but-
generated-the-most-at-the-box-office)

~~~
erichocean
That quora post is virtually worthless. Comparing "production costs" between
films is effectively meaningless.

For example, _Paranormal Activity_ had a "production cost" of only "$15,000",
and did "$190 million" at the box office. Sounds great, right?

Wrong. First, every low budget production involves calling in a huge number of
favors (read: free work) that is not done on normal, funded films. So even the
$15K number is ridiculously low if you are trying to compare the issue at
stake: money spent on production value.

But let's ignore that. Next up is the cost of prints. A print on a wide
release averages about $1200/print. Suppose we order 3000 prints on the
_Paranormal_ release. How much did we just spend? $3.6 million. (Without doing
a wide release, there's no way to hit $190 million at the box office.)

Wait, that doesn't sound right! The Quora post makes it sound like some heroic
filmmaker got their film made for $15K and it "made" $190 million! And now
you're telling me they couldn't have even _sold_ tickets without spending
another $3.6 million? Yup. The $15K bit is a lie, part of the publicity of the
film.

Of course, they don't keep the whole $190 million. Roughly, they'll end up
with around 50% of that after the theaters take their cut. So we're really
talking $95 million on a $15K production budget, and a $3.6 million print
budget.

But wait, there's more: making the _correct_ payments to the production staff,
actors, director, etc. and the cost of marketing.

You see, a film that's shot under budget will have to make up those numbers if
it does well. There is no free lunch. For our purposes, the amount is likely
to increase a $15K budget by 10-100x (not a typo). In many cases,
substantially more as top-line talent takes a percentage of that $95 million
gross.

And then we hit the advertising. In a nutshell, Hollywood (and in this case,
Paramount did the marketing) has a tough time marketing _anything_ in the
usual way for under $20 million. So let's go with that, even though I suspect
the numbers for Paranormal were higher.

So...with all that, was Paranourmal a hit? Absolutely. Was it an example of a
$15K movie that made $190 million. No, not even close: you're a few orders of
magnitude off.

 _The same is true of every other film on that list._

\-----

The real reason Hollywood does not make "low budget" films like the OP seems
to want is because even spending zero, nothing, nada on the production budget
still incurs $20-30 million in costs to distribute that film.

So ask yourself: if you were going to spend $20-30 million manufacturing and
promoting something, wouldn't you want to spend some serious money on the
production itself? Wouldn't you want to make sure the story/actors/direction
had a high likelihood that people would watch the resulting film?

You would, which brings us to the real problem: actual films cost more.

Suppose you were really frugal, you tailored your story to easy locations, few
setups, just a couple of actors, etc. Even then, $200K is pretty low to do a
film that would actually be watchable (the "found footage" genere is basically
the only kind of film that can be reasonably shot for the under $50K budgets
in the Quora article).

So okay, $200K – and you don't have distribution yet, and likely won't get it.

That's a lot of money to "invest" in a film that won't make even it's
production costs back. The vast majority of independent filmmakers don't have
that kind of money to blow on a film and get zero return. (Raising money there
is just as hard as Silicon Valley, if not harder.)

It can be done. _Like Crazy_ is a recent example, made with a $250K production
budget and shot on HDSLRs. It's done well enough that the production team will
get to have another go on a presumably bigger film.

But it won't be done often, and bitching about the 120 films the Hollywood
studios make each year (yes, it really is that low) isn't going to change what
they make.

~~~
ericd
Is this info about prints still valid now that a number of theaters use
digital projectors?

~~~
erichocean
Yes, because the cost of buying the digital projectors was offset by an
agreement with the studios to pay the same amount for "digital" prints as they
currently do for film prints, with the extra cost going towards the cost of
the digital projectors themselves.

At some point in the future, when everything is all digital and the projectors
have been paid for, I do expect the costs of digital prints to go down, but
probably not to actual cost, since (a) the precedent was established, and (b)
filmmakers are constantly pressuring for better equipment.

For example, _The Hobbit_ is being shot at 48 fps. Not all digital projectors
in use in theaters today can play back 3D material at that frame rate. The
ability of the theaters to upgrade their projectors is made possible, in part,
because the digital "prints" cost well above their actual cost.

A very good question though, and the answer frustrates pretty much all low
budget filmmakers. :)

~~~
ericd
Ha, thanks for the info! That's some interesting financial trickery that I
wouldn't have assumed, but in light of the other financial engineering that
goes on surrounding films, I can't say I'm surprised. With rapid improvements
in digital inevitable (I could see the pixels at a recent "IMAX Experience"
viewing), I'm guessing that Hollywood will be on the hook for a while as they
try to reach parity with film...

