$100+ Million Movie Budgets Are Stupid

Hollywood must have a burning money fetish.

Wonder if the people who finance and set the budgets for big budget movies are masochists.

No, seriously.

They must like the torture of seeing underwhelming box office returns on opening weekend.

Am looking forward to seeing Ford vs. Ferrari but what geniuses decided this should be a $100 million movie? It’s almost like they setup some movies for failure because you know after the ad budget is put on top of that, it’s forced to generate $250-300 million to turn a profit. Maybe, it will, but ….


Writer-director James Mangold plays the Hollywood studio game well enough to build allies who believe in him. While at Fox, studio chief Emma Watts backed X-Men installments “Wolverine” and “Logan” and Oscar-winner “Walk the Line.” That made greenlighting $100-million sports saga “Ford v Ferrari” less of a risk, but it’s the kind of movie that studios don’t care to bank these days.

James Mangold: Risk in Ford v Ferrari is a Race-Car Movie For Adults | IndieWire

Are they paying Christian Bale and Matt Damon like $30 million combined or something to act in this movie? I don’t get what is taking all this money to make a race car movie. Did Carroll Shelby make cars out of gold?

Doctor Sleep ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ had around a $55 million budget. For a horror movie. In 1978 Halloween ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ was made for way less than $1 million. Why is a horror movie budget over $50 million dollars? Did the studios believe that it would generate $150 million in November (!!!) for a horror movie sequel?

Call in Anne Wilson to belt, “Crazy on you!”

Charlie’s Angels the second reboot? $48 million dollar budget. If you’re saying “no way!” then look it up yourself. I am rooting for Elizabeth Banks, really I am, but … well, $150 – $200 million (to turn a profit, presumably) in the 2019 business climate for this second reboot — yes, even in the #metoo women-powered era — movie seems way more than optimistic.

Let me go crazy on you!

Look, it’s not my money, but if it was, I’d say: make more films vs. spending more on a single film. Spread the risk around. How about more adaptations of really good books? (of which there are many!) Make more films with budgets under $10 million.

These actors and actresses don’t need to be paid risk-free double digit millions to star in movies for a few month’s work. Make them wealthy by risk sharing in the success of the film. Give them points on profitability in their contract. They won’t be in your film for less money? So what. Then make stars out of new actors and actresses. Supply and demand. When their fifth house tax bill is due, I’m sure at least some of them will accept a cut in pay. Now there is a movement worth getting behind.

Talk to the woman or man in the factory busting their butt in the real world to put food on the table and ask any of them if they give a crap about some wealthy actor/actress getting overpaid to act in a movie.

Too bad nobody financing these films is asking for my input.

They’ll keep making movies with stupid budgets. We’ll see the same clickbait headlines on opening weekend Saturday declaring movies have “bombed” already.

An industry which douses itself in gasoline and then runs through flaming box offices.

And, just so it’s clear, I’m not saying that studios should never make big budget films, but when you have a race car movie like Ford vs. Ferrari costing over $100 million and a second reboot of a modestly successful 70s TV show costing nearly $50 million and that’s without marketing, somebody needs a mental health checkup.

But hey, if you get the green light for $100 million for your film, flame on!

14 thoughts on “$100+ Million Movie Budgets Are Stupid

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s