Monday, 6/2/97 Big-budget films should die out as costs get out
of hand FILM: Viewers shouldn’t continue underwriting studios’
overspending
It’s so perfect, it would be considered contrived if it were
fiction. Here’s the situation: a film called "Titanic" about one of
the greatest fiascoes in nautical history is swelling by the day
into quite possibly one of the greatest financial fiascoes in movie
history. Early word on it says that many of the scenes are quite
impressive, but with an unprecedented budget of $200 million, a
budget so big it took Fox and Paramount to cover, it’s doubtful
whether or not even the great and exalted director James Cameron
can ensure any profits. On top of it all, the film’s release date,
once slated for early July, has now been pushed all the way back to
December 19! The Great Wall of China didn’t take so long to finish.
All this isn’t to bait Big Jim Cameron into firing off a letter of
defense to the Bruin like he did to the Times, it only goes to
highlight a bigger problem that looms on Hollywood like an iceberg
waiting for a certain cruise ship. I believe that within the next
10 years Hollywood will undergo a catastrophic collapse, a
cataclysm brought on by too much spending, out-of-control budgets
and not enough profit to go around. This shake-up will decimate the
modern film industry, and only the big-small companies will be left
standing. Call me Cassandra, but I see it coming. Just take a look
at the budgets to these insipid summer films the majors have lined
up for us: "Speed 2" – $102 Million and "Batman & Robin" – $110
Million. The $100 Million Club has never had such a bloated roster.
It’s gotten to the point that it’s actually impressive that "The
Lost World" (which should rake in another $100 million by the time
this reaches your hot hands) was be made for only $75 million, a
price tag that only 10 years ago was considered the ceiling price
for a film. The film costs get mystifyingly greater and greater,
and of course, you and I are the ones that end up paying for it.
Because the movie industry likes its huge profits only a little
more than padding budgets so they can have sushi on set every day
(not to mention the long-held contention that much of those huge
budgets also subsidize Heidi Fleiss and high-level drug peddlers in
town). Simple economics tells you if the budgets get bigger, the
profits are in danger of shrinking. So that’s why you have to pay
eight friggin’ bucks at a movie if they don’t offer student
discounts (some of us can remember when a movie only cost $5, or
even less). And be warned cineastes, they’re already paying $9 on
the east coast. Before you know it, it’s $10, and once that
happens, mark my words, people will think twice about rushing out
every weekend to the local megaplex. The studios can’t continue
this promiscuous spending without feeling repercussions. It’s
common sense. And when the well does dry up, there are going to be
a lot of overpaid people hit very hard. Hollywood has had such
shake-ups before. If you’ve taken Film 106A (History of American
Film) you know that the ’50’s was a time when the once-mighty
Hollywood studio system took it in the gonads when the government
cracked down on the studios’ monopoly and TV showed up to keep the
viewers at home. The breakdown continued into the 1960s opening the
door to a new era of big studio experimentalism since nobody knew
what would remedy the broken machine. Seventies’ mega-hits like
"The Godfather" and "Star Wars" gave way to a rebirth of the
Hollywood Nation. Then, of course, The Great Communicator struck
down the ruling that said studios couldn’t own theaters as a
friendly gesture to his old cronies, and the studios thrived in the
1980’s. But, thank God, the 1980s are over. The recession may have
subsided, but the feeding frenzy at the box office has not abated.
One would guess someone in the studios must realize that the
budgets have to start coming down, but who wants to go on record to
say "we have to spend less" when movies still tend to make a tidy
profit no matter how bloated the budget? "Jerry Maguire" showed
what can happen to you if you espouse that kind of philosophy in a
corporate setting. The stage is even set for other forms of
entertainment to give the movies a run for their money. The
Internet, interactive media, cable and dish, home video – there’s
never been more other things to do than go see a movie (not to
mention that archaic practice of reading for pleasure), and those
options are only going to get more appealing as we hurl ourselves
into the 21st century And remember John/Jane Q. Public, it’s you
the studios are looking at to subsidize the thousands of dollars
they throw away on cappuccino, which adds up to millions. They’ll
keep gouging us at the box office until we put our foot down and
withhold our hard-earned greenbacks. It may happen gradually, or in
a flash, but like the storybook giant that had the beanstalk cut
out from under him, the slow-moving flabby behemoth that is the
Hollywood system will crash hard. Then the only companies left will
be the small ones, and Miramax will be the biggest kid on the
block. They’ll have to figure out a way to make good films, both
arty ones and spectacular ones, that don’t cost more than the gross
national product of the Third World. As an aspiring filmmaker
myself, I don’t believe I ever need to go over $50 million in order
to bring even the biggest, most fantastic adventure I can imagine
to the glorious big screen. Because in a world in which so many
have so little, it’s insane that we waste so much on entertainment.
The studios may be immune to such pinko morality, but if that
doesn’t get ’em, the basics of economics will. Brace yourself for
impact. Wilson is a third-year graduate student in film directing.
This is his last column for the Bruin.