Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
Wow, bad day?
|
No, just grumpy because, I can't afford a big name actor for my film.
You won't get any argument that better films would have been made with unknowns. In fact, you could have made great films with no cast and a much, MUCH smaller budget.
Great films that would go directly to video in the US and would have little to no distribution in the International market.
The fact is there are two types of studio pictures today... the big-budget blockbuster in the 70 to 150 million dollar range and the small budget 10 to 50 million range. Anything else (i.e. 10 million and down) are produced by independents that hope to maybe get a theatrical release and recoup their budgets.
The bigger budgets that are required by epic films have to become larger to cast the bigger named actors because they will never turn a profit without those names.
I can make you a great film that would rock your world for under 2 million. The problem is the studios will not risk the P&A (prints and advertising) money required to release that film unless it has one of two things (preferably both): cast or a money making genre (action or horror).
For example: Saw was made for very little money (less than 2 million) it had some solid A- or B actors that if they appeared on a video box customers would recognize them. Lion's Gate picked it up after it was produced and gave it a theatrical release. It did well in the cinemas but then doubled that business in dvd/video sales. Now, if Saw had have gone directly to video, it would have maybe made 1 to 2 million in video sales.
It is also a hollywood given that if you do not open strong you will not finish strong. Everything hangs on that opening weekend. Big star actors deliver this.
Again, if you don't like it... don't support it. Boycott big budget films. Don't complain about the actors making the salaries they are making, it isn't like their salaries are regulated... they earn what the market will bear.