ourchair
Well-Known Member
Re: Punisher 2
It cost $110 million to make Fantastic Four and it felt like they never used their powers. $200 million for Superman Returns and they couldn't spend the money to send someone flying across the room from a super punch. People say it's inflation, but then why is it still possible to make a science fiction film with ten elaborate sets, detailed costumes and a freaking chase scene that DOESN'T use blue screen for $40 million? (That's Serenity by the way.)
My suspicion is that in general, the talents of Hollywood are asking for bigger checks than they deserve, or than the box office receipts can justify. And while box office receipts do grow, they're not growing as fast as the budgets --- hence why there seems to be more 'box-office bombs' these days than there were back in the 90s. Hong Kong and Korea make films on budgets that Hollywood uses to fund the hors d'oeuvres at the commissary and put the green M&Ms in the trailers.
The result? Films that cost a lot, but don't look like the money went anywhere. And I'm not talking about 'intelligence' or 'quality'. I'm talking about raw production aesthetics and all that. I'm just wondering why a movie can be so visually unengaging yet cost so much. Just count how many people were involved in The Lord of the Rings and divide that 282 million dollar budget by that number, and you've got a film that's definitely more economical than Superman Returns which looked like a cat's turd.
Now I'm not saying we subject production staffs to slave wages, I'm just saying that Hollywood throws around money carelessly and doesn't really ask questions about the diminishing returns that occur between budget and box office receipts, or about whether the salaries of its talent (both the actors and the production staff) are really justified.
This is probably a whole nother ball of discussion, but I think most Hollywood movies are overpriced now.
It cost $110 million to make Fantastic Four and it felt like they never used their powers. $200 million for Superman Returns and they couldn't spend the money to send someone flying across the room from a super punch. People say it's inflation, but then why is it still possible to make a science fiction film with ten elaborate sets, detailed costumes and a freaking chase scene that DOESN'T use blue screen for $40 million? (That's Serenity by the way.)
My suspicion is that in general, the talents of Hollywood are asking for bigger checks than they deserve, or than the box office receipts can justify. And while box office receipts do grow, they're not growing as fast as the budgets --- hence why there seems to be more 'box-office bombs' these days than there were back in the 90s. Hong Kong and Korea make films on budgets that Hollywood uses to fund the hors d'oeuvres at the commissary and put the green M&Ms in the trailers.
The result? Films that cost a lot, but don't look like the money went anywhere. And I'm not talking about 'intelligence' or 'quality'. I'm talking about raw production aesthetics and all that. I'm just wondering why a movie can be so visually unengaging yet cost so much. Just count how many people were involved in The Lord of the Rings and divide that 282 million dollar budget by that number, and you've got a film that's definitely more economical than Superman Returns which looked like a cat's turd.
Now I'm not saying we subject production staffs to slave wages, I'm just saying that Hollywood throws around money carelessly and doesn't really ask questions about the diminishing returns that occur between budget and box office receipts, or about whether the salaries of its talent (both the actors and the production staff) are really justified.
