“I see money people…”
Boy, am I in the wrong business!
Faced with decreasing box office receipts, fewer blockbusters, and a reduced production roster, the motion picture industry is facing several daunting challenges…
But, really, who wants to focus on all that negative stuff when we can celebrate the lofty salaries, outlandish perks, and assorted other benefits of being a movie star?
The Smoking Gun has obtained internal budget documents detailing where the money was allocated on an assortment of big-budget Tinseltown productions. The records provide a line-by-line account of spending on each movie up to its completion, but do not reveal what the studio paid after that point for marketing and advertising (that secondary sum usually adds tens of millions to a movie’s total cost).
The budgets each run a minimum of 80 pages, so we’ve chosen to excerpt from three of the documents and reproduce one in its entirety.
The $70.2 million budget for “Signs” was dominated by the whopping $25 million Mel Gibson was paid for his role as “Graham Ness,” a widowed ex-minister bedeviled by crop circles and an alien. In addition, the actor’s entourage expenses totaled nearly $1 million, with $300,000 of that figure earmarked for the star’s “jet allowance” and another $57,000 for a “chiropractor/masseuse.” Gibson also received in excess of $1000 a day in per diem payments (the average daily “walking around” money provided for other on-location employees was $65).
Why can’t Hollywood make movies with good scripts and little known actors and still make money? Better, faster and cheaper dumb dumbs.
I guess that’s why they need DRM so much. I would hate to see wacko Gibson go without his masseuse.
Improbus…
Movies are made for kids, and kids pay for big names. You have two identical movies, one with Sexxxxy stars and one with sexxxxy nobodies, and you’ll find where the money goes.
Hollywood often makes movies without the big stars. Sometimes they bomb just as badly as the movies with the big name stars and sometimes they make a lot of money.
Signs sucked. The plot was second rate, the direction was horrible, and the lead actor didn’t deserve star billing. But hey, if someone wants to offer me $25 M plus extras then what the heck, I’ll take it.
I haven’t actually been to the movies in years, and the ones I like are usually small budget independent things I catch via pot luck. My favorite movie, other than “Mars Attacks”? “Spaced Invaders”. Priceless.
Improbus, you’re referring to a concept known as “art,” which requires “talent,” both of which are scarce in Hollywood.
Signs was without a doubt one of the ten WORST movies I have ever seen.
Not that has anything to do with this conversation.
What’s surprising. Hollywood is a cesspit of whack-jobs. What’s newsworthy is when something balanced or “normal” happens there.
Why do we pay Hollywood stars anyway? Cause its the hordes of moviegoers that pay their ridiculously over-inflated salaries …