Better Man, the Robbie Williams biopic film, is set to be one of the biggest bombs in box office history. Who thought spending $110 million on this movie was a good idea?
When I look at the films that Hollywood is putting out, compared to the rest of the world, I'm seeing big budget and lots of CGI. Wicked, Gladiator II, etc. What I'd like to see is more plucky films (Godzilla Minus 1--had a controversial $15 million budget [reports came in that many of the digital CGI team weren't properly paid]). Smaller budget films, that pay their workers well, would be great. Sometimes having a constraint forces directors to make interesting creative choices. I'm thinking back to The Creator's budget: $80 million for some pretty impressive CGI. It would be great to see better films come out with smaller budgets. Frankly, I'd like to see less $310 million Gladiator II films and more films that have smaller budgets.
I think it warrants stating that this movie is getting near universal praise with a 88% certified fresh rating on rotten tomatoes, better than A Complete Unknown, One Love, Back to Black and Bohemian Rhapsody and nearly identical scores to Rocketman and Straight Outta Compton. Anyone who actually took the time to see this movie instead of blindly bashing it on the internet seems to be in agreement that the risks this movie took worked well within the story. It is also a false dichotomy to say either they make this movie or they fund 5 other 25 million dollar movies when the financiers goal was to make this movie and paid the price to see the vision through. I understand this blog is coming more from a business perspective but it should not be lost that this move took real risks, and while they are not being rewarded with financial compensation they have made a piece of art that attempted to challenge the stale biopic movie formula and largely succeeded.
Totally fair. I agree that the risks they took are refreshing. And it’s likely not a bad film. I have not seen it, hence why I’m only trying to understand the financials here. I’m worried that if a risky movie like this bombs because it was too expensive that it harms other creative movies like this which may never get a chance. Hollywood likes to point fingers. This is an easy bust to point at.
When I look at the films that Hollywood is putting out, compared to the rest of the world, I'm seeing big budget and lots of CGI. Wicked, Gladiator II, etc. What I'd like to see is more plucky films (Godzilla Minus 1--had a controversial $15 million budget [reports came in that many of the digital CGI team weren't properly paid]). Smaller budget films, that pay their workers well, would be great. Sometimes having a constraint forces directors to make interesting creative choices. I'm thinking back to The Creator's budget: $80 million for some pretty impressive CGI. It would be great to see better films come out with smaller budgets. Frankly, I'd like to see less $310 million Gladiator II films and more films that have smaller budgets.
$25 million on the rights...
$110 million on the movie...
Don't forget the millions they spend on advertising and marketing the movie. (Which they never tell us how much they spent on...)
Even a modest campaign would run 10 or 20 million.
No matter how good the story is or how creative they are telling it, it still has to draw in the audience.
Even if they took away the CGI monkey, there isn't anything about this movie that would encourage me to see it.
I think it warrants stating that this movie is getting near universal praise with a 88% certified fresh rating on rotten tomatoes, better than A Complete Unknown, One Love, Back to Black and Bohemian Rhapsody and nearly identical scores to Rocketman and Straight Outta Compton. Anyone who actually took the time to see this movie instead of blindly bashing it on the internet seems to be in agreement that the risks this movie took worked well within the story. It is also a false dichotomy to say either they make this movie or they fund 5 other 25 million dollar movies when the financiers goal was to make this movie and paid the price to see the vision through. I understand this blog is coming more from a business perspective but it should not be lost that this move took real risks, and while they are not being rewarded with financial compensation they have made a piece of art that attempted to challenge the stale biopic movie formula and largely succeeded.
Totally fair. I agree that the risks they took are refreshing. And it’s likely not a bad film. I have not seen it, hence why I’m only trying to understand the financials here. I’m worried that if a risky movie like this bombs because it was too expensive that it harms other creative movies like this which may never get a chance. Hollywood likes to point fingers. This is an easy bust to point at.