"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.
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.
"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?"
Any science fiction/fantasy movie with complicated sets and lots of effects for one.
Any historical piece, with revives an older world.
Anything involving lots of actors.
Anything involving even one famous actor.
10 million dollars is at the absolutely bottom end concerning most of the famous Hollywood movies. Budgets around 70M-100M+ is the norm.
Marketing that film and securing distribution has become far harder than it has in the past. The only way to get mass distribution is through the major movie production companies and they don't have an appetite for risky films anymore.
That may be true, but the same democratization smackfu is talking about has also taken place on the distribution & marketing end. It's easier now to "market" & distribute your movie without help from the gatekeepers. Mostly online, but it's cheaper to make DVDs too.
Pointing to Kevin Smith again, he is now promoting a movie independently using his internet celebrity, blog, podcast, tours, film festivals (this used to be the only channel) and distributing it via netflix, itunes & such.
Both points are probably true at the same time. A lot of the biggest stuff is going on inside the castle. The Gatekeepers are stricter than ever about what they let in. But, times are pretty good in the town outside the castle too, you might not have to care as much about the gatekeepers. If news of your juggling prowess reaches the King, the gatekeepers will let you in. If not, you can still entertain the masses.
The analogy to startups is good. But, you don't have to blame the investors/studios. What they are doing might make sense. They want less risky investments because they are putting a lot of money into them. It's not necessarily a bad thing that longer shots get less money. It's nice that they can still take the shot without it.
Comments
"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.
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.
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?
This says Toy Story had a budget of 30 million dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Story
> 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?
"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?"
Any science fiction/fantasy movie with complicated sets and lots of effects for one. Any historical piece, with revives an older world. Anything involving lots of actors. Anything involving even one famous actor.
10 million dollars is at the absolutely bottom end concerning most of the famous Hollywood movies. Budgets around 70M-100M+ is the norm.
Marketing that film and securing distribution has become far harder than it has in the past. The only way to get mass distribution is through the major movie production companies and they don't have an appetite for risky films anymore.
That may be true, but the same democratization smackfu is talking about has also taken place on the distribution & marketing end. It's easier now to "market" & distribute your movie without help from the gatekeepers. Mostly online, but it's cheaper to make DVDs too.
Pointing to Kevin Smith again, he is now promoting a movie independently using his internet celebrity, blog, podcast, tours, film festivals (this used to be the only channel) and distributing it via netflix, itunes & such.
Both points are probably true at the same time. A lot of the biggest stuff is going on inside the castle. The Gatekeepers are stricter than ever about what they let in. But, times are pretty good in the town outside the castle too, you might not have to care as much about the gatekeepers. If news of your juggling prowess reaches the King, the gatekeepers will let you in. If not, you can still entertain the masses.
The analogy to startups is good. But, you don't have to blame the investors/studios. What they are doing might make sense. They want less risky investments because they are putting a lot of money into them. It's not necessarily a bad thing that longer shots get less money. It's nice that they can still take the shot without it.