DEBATE: The Alamo - $135M or $70M ?

[Bob O]

Europa the sad thing is the current management wouldnt know a blockbuster if it hit them in the face. They will waste alot of money making pearl harbor and then turn down the chance to make a movie like Lord of the Rings or a great movie like Black Hawk down, maybe eisner didnt want to have a moive made that would reflect badly on his hero clinton!

 

[rpink58]

Grog,
They paid us $100 a day plus food and lodging. If you get a chance do it. What a great time.

 

[Grog]

Would love to but just don't have the time. I have friends who have been extras in more movies than I can count and they keep me updated in the hopes I can make it someday.

 

[Planogirl]

Just curious, but have you checked out the IMAX Alamo movie in San Antonio? I know that is not exactly next door to Plano, but it is a decent little movie if you get a chance

AirLarry, I've seen it and it's surprisingly good IMO. I hope that WDW can make their version as good if not better no matter what the budget is.

maybe eisner didnt want to have a moive made that would reflect badly on his hero clinton

 

[Another Voice]

If anyone is interested, a positive review of the John Sayles script for ‘The Alamo’ can be found at http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/365/365074p1.html . The review also includes the expected castings (prior to Ron Howard walking out) with Russel Crowe as Sam Houston, Billy Bob Thorton as Davy Crockett, Ethan Hawke as William Travis and Viggo Mortensen as Jim Bowie.

The review praises the screenplay for the way it treats the very complex characters in a very complex situation: “These rebels are flawed, ordinary men engaged in this revolution for a variety of reasons, ranging from pure self-interest to the political. Their disunity makes them more interesting because it shows just how close the Texas Revolution came to failing. It's a testament to the screenwriters that these characters can be so gritty and offensive without alienating the spectator.”

As an example, here’s how Davy Crockett comes off – “I enjoyed the way Davy Crockett was depicted here. He was not the larger-than-life folk hero often portrayed onscreen. He wasn't the whimsical backwoodsman played by Fess Parker or the jingoistic living legend The Duke presented. This Crockett was a simple man trapped by his own celebrity. Jim Bowie seems to see right through Crockett. There's one nice scene between the two where it becomes apparent that Bowie may be more of the "real deal" than Crockett. But David, as he prefers to be called, is a more introspective soul than Bowie and seems to understand human nature better. At one point, he reveals to Bowie that he could flee the Alamo but that "Davy Crockett" never could. Fame seals Crockett's fate.”

It sounds like an interesting read, too bad Disney’s gone and trashed it. Also in the review is the rumor that the writer/director of ‘The Rookie’ has been brought in to give Disney the all-action, all-fighting movie that Disney is now demanding.


P.S. – There were many changes made to the ‘Black Hawk Down’ script to avoid mentioning Washington’s role in the battle. Michael’s politics are very well known around town.

 

[Planogirl]

Disney will need to walk a fine line with this one. I suspect that the largest turn-out will naturally be in Texas since Texans seem to historically flock to anything that tells this story. And while it's certainly good to be accurate, showing the characters as TOO flawed might just rattle a few cages around here.

The story sounds quite compelling so far though so I'm certainly hopeful. And heck with the reviews, I'll be there to see this one (IF it ever gets made ).

 

[Another Voice]

Well, Sony gave Sam Rami $135+ million and he didn’t do to badly with it. Before ‘Spider-man’, the guy’s credits were basically ‘A Simple Plan’, ‘Evil Dead’ and being the brother of that weird guy on ‘Xena’.

Conversely Disney gave Michael Bay $135 million. That guy already had a portfolio of big budget, big return movies like ‘Armageddon’ and ‘The Rock’ under his belt, yet he turned out the stinker ‘Pearl Harbor’.

The big difference is that Mr. Rami has talent – ‘Simple Plan’ and even ‘Evil Dead’ were good, if small, movies. Sony took a chance that he’d be able to handle the budget. Mr. Bay, however, made two brainless excuses for lots of explosions and will best be remembered for the animal cracker scene in ‘Armageddon’ (the first time a cookie has been more compelling than either lead actor). Disney bet that they didn’t need a good movie, they just needed more explosions – Michael Bay was there man. That’s exactly what they got.

And, according to the rumors, that’s what the current tussle over ‘The Alamo’ has come down to. Mr. Howard wants to make a good movie; Mr. Eisner wants a lot of brainless explosions. It’s a simple battle between the mind that gave us ‘Apollo 13’ (an epic on a human scale) and ‘Pearl Harbor’ (fuel explosions set against some nice scenery).

Frankly, I saw ‘Reign of Fire’ and I’m rather bored by explosions now.

 

[Bob O]

All the people mentioned by dscoop i would let them spend 135 mil. to produce/make a movie if i felt it was a compelling movie that would be done well. From what AV posted it seems like another big mistake by disney which is the norm and not the exception.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

that’s what the current tussle over ‘The Alamo’ has come down to. Mr. Howard wants to make a good movie; Mr. Eisner wants a lot of brainless explosions.

This seems to me to be the root of the mistake on Alamo: whether they expect to sell meat or sizzle. Whether it ends up being $70 million worth of sizzle or $135 million worth of sizzle, I don't expect to get much meat on the Alamo's bones, now that Howard's gone.

That's the crux of why I'd go ahead and front Opie the big bucks; the guy's done some meaty stuff over the last, say, four decades or so.

A couple years from now we might be able to look back and give a definitive summation, but at the moment, I'm sticking my neck out to say that $135 million of meat is a better investment than $70 million of sizzle... in the same way I'd stick my neck out to say that $70 million of meat is a better investment than $135 million in sizzle; in the same way I feel TDS represents $3 billion of meat vs. DCA representing $1 billion of sizzle.

-WFH

PS: I don't mean to ignore the turn the thread has taken, but I feel lists of directors wouldn't add much. To be honest, Howard wouldn't have been on my version of such a list, if I had to write it from scratch: I'd simply never have thought of him. I actually don't care much for his stuff, personally, but I respect his work ethic and life-long dedication to his craft, and I think we all have to admit he has created a compelling and successful body of work. Those are the characteristics I'd want to see in the folks making movies for me.

 

[Bstanley]

I was wondering how many 'blockbuster' movies have actually been successful so I looked at the US box Office for all the movies that had a published budget of more than $100M on 'The Numbers' website.

I left off all movies that are still in release because who knows how much they will make. This 'punished' Sony and 20th Century Fox (Spiderman, Minority Report and Clones).

That left 39 movies that had a published budget of $100M or more.

30.8% of them lost money (12)
17.9% of them made from from 0 to 19% profit (7)
12.8% of them made from 20% to 49% profit (5)
17.9% of them made from 50% to 99% profit (7)
15.4% of them made from 100% to 199% profit (6)
5.1% of them made from 200% to 275% profit (2)

Prior to this year Sony and Warner Bros were basically tied at zero - they hadn't really made any money overall on their 'blockbusters' - the losers equalled the winners. Obviously with Spiderman Sony is now in the black. Warner Bros did so well with Harry Potter last year that they overcame their Wild Wild West and AI deficit.

20th Century Fox knows how to make blockbusters - Titanic and the Star Wars movies really make their numbers incredible. But they have had their clinker - Speed II.

New Line is 'perfect' - 1 for 1 with LoTR

Disney is in the middle of the pack - profitable, but less than 25% overall.

Interesting idea though - I have read that US Box Office only represents one third of the money that a movie will make. Another third comes from Overseas Box Office, and the final third comes from Video/DVD rentals.

This would indicate that ALL movies with a budget greater than $100M made money with a single exception - 'Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within'.

So if that's true Disney should just cut the check for Ron H. and turn him loose - they can't lose!

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Bruce,

Interesting numbers.

Is it possible to get all the titles? Particularly for the eleven other stinkers, and maybe the top eight that made over 100% profit?

I'm curious to see how if my own assessment of whether a movie was/was not a high-quality endeavor correlates at all to how much money they made.

-WFH

 

[Another Voice]

Wow – data dump on the boards, dude!

The numbers you are looking at, both the budgets and box office takes are examples of Hollywood accounting at their finest. And Hollywood has spews out more lies than Enron execs swapping stock tips with the guys from Worldcom.

On the budget side, it’s always better to inflate the budget is you’re working on a small budget movie. In Hollywood, the more money you control equals the more power you wield. Working on a hundred million movie is a higher status than working on an eighty million flick.

Unless the buzz about the movie is bad. Then you want to show how well you’ve spent the budget and how prudent you are with the corporation’s money. Worse yet is when the budget for the movie becomes a news story in its own right (in a bad way). The budgets for both ‘Titanic’ and ‘Dinosaur’ are low balled on the list for just that reason.

It’s also a question of where the money goes. Sometimes, as in ‘Titanic’ and ‘Dinosaur’, the movie really does cost huge sums of money just to make the movie. Other times the money goes to big name “talent” that really has no bearing on the film itself. An average “A” list start pulls $20-$25 million per movie these days. Add to that co-star salaries based on that, a director that needs parity, and pay-offs to the stars cronies & handlers. It is very easy for a major big budget movie to spend more than half of their budget before a single set is designed, a single costume is sewn, or a single frame of film is exposed.

To go along the big stars, most also get a percentage of the box office take as well. These costs do not show up in the film’s budget but can amount to ten of millions of dollars on every movie. The story around town is that Jack Nicholson’s deal on the first ‘Batman’ that the movie will never turn a profit. Ever.

Once again – it’s how the money is spent that’s important. Look way down the list and you’ll see ’20,000 Leagues Under the Sea’. That was the most expensive movie filmed up until to that time (mostly because of all the underwater work). That turned out pretty well. And no one is going to argue that there was a dime not well-invested in ‘Titanic’.

Spending $70 million or $135 million on ‘The Alamo’ isn’t as important unless people have already decided the movie is going to tank or have no intention on making a good movie in the first place.

 

[KNWVIKING]

...Or does any one else out there lack interest in movies we all know the ending to ? Titanic,Pearl Harbor,Apollo 13,etc. Now the Alamo. I guess I have a hard time trying to get involved with a story I learned about in history class 30 years ago.

 

[Bstanley]

AV,

Is it true that a good rule of thumb for a movie's income is that it's a third from domestic box office, a third from overseas income and a third from Video/DVD sales/rentals?

And if so - it really looks like all of these big budget movies made a fair amount of money - some of them amazing amounts of money. Pick a so-called money loser like Waterworld. It cost $175M to make and only generated $88M in domestic box office. Adding in the overseas box office and the Video/DVD would give it more than $80M in profit...

Or are the published numbers so untrustworthy as to be unusable??

 

[Another Voice]

There isn’t yet a really good rule of thumb about a movie’s total take. The world has really changed over the last ten years.

‘Waterworld’ and ‘A.I.’ were both domestic flops that were huge hits overseas. ‘Family Man’ was a so-so domestic movie that went huge on home video. Big action films with big stars do far better overseas than domestically, comedies do much better in North America. Big box office hits tend to do well on video, but it’s no where near a guaranteed thing since the advent of DVD.

And the money that flows into a studio is even more difficult to compute. Domestically, the rule of thumb is that half of the box office goes to the studio. But with skewed contracts, backend deals and multi-studio financing each movie is different. And in the overseas market, many times a studio will pre-sell the rights to a film to raise the production money. None of the foreign box office takes comes back to Hollywood. In home video, you’ve got distributors, retailers, mass marketers, pay-cable sales and dozens of other people with their snout in the trough.

Figuring out how much profit a specific movie made for a specific studio without direct inside information is nearly impossible.

 

[Bob O]

The fact i know the ending doesnt matter in the least!!! I like to see how the movie is made and how it is done. I knew how titanic was going to end but the movie itself was still excellant while i knew how Pearl Harbor ended but was surprised how the battle scenes were so good but the rest of the movie was so awful.
And im sure Av knows more but if what i have read in the papers is right that Hollywood has tryed to claim that moives that sold hundred of millions of dollars worth of tickets actually lost money in a attempt to dent paying actors money based on the movies profits.

 

[Bstanley]

Figuring out how much profit a specific movie made for a specific studio without direct inside information is nearly impossible.

Oh Drat, oh well - I guess I can dump those massive pivot tables then and use the hard drive space for more vacation pictures...


But KNWVIKING - a good story has a beginning, a muddle, and an end. First off - I would hate to miss all the great beginnings and muddles just because I know the historical ending to a particular battle. Secondly - who knows when the movie will end? Maybe the movie ends at San Jacinto. If I were telling the story of The Alamo that might be how I would do it.

 

[daber]

Just read that Disney in order to reduce production costs has named a new director, (the one who directed The Rookie) who commands only a six figure salary, rather than Ron Howards millions.