It’s absolutely no secret that money is needed for EVERYTHING these days. From food and bathroom stuff to video games and movies, everything seems to have a price. That’s just reality. For film-making, money is EXTREMELY important. Movie making is not a simple process, nor is it cheap. There are some movies today that were made for several hundred million dollars. It is a pricey investment. The question that comes to mind is this: Does that larger budget actually make for a better film? If so or if not, why? How much does the size of a film’s budget actually affect the movie itself? Let’s start at the beginning, shall we? For a movie to be made, you need to have an idea. Then you have to write something for that idea, like a script or screenplay. Next, you have to take that screenplay to a studio so they can approve the script if possible. If it gets the green light, then you have to get a loan from a bank to be able to make that movie. However, if you want to make a theatrical release, particularly here in the states, you need to have the MPAA(Motion Picture Association of America)approve the script and get a rating so you can get that loan. What rating you get will effect how much money you can get for the film. So, if you can get all that, what comes next? You have to hire the actors, rent the equipment and pay the people to operate that equipment. You also have to have a location scout to find the best place(s) to shoot your film. Then you have to hire writers, catering and a mess of other things to get your film made. Needless to say, it’s a pretty complicated process and can end up being very expensive.
With that in mind, how successful that film could be, regardless of budget, will depend entirely on who is at the helm. Directors, producers, actors; these are extremely important elements of making a movie. Now, let’s discuss the advantages and disadvantages of small and large budgets. With larger budgets, you tend to have more room to maneuver as far getting the film made. You can hire better quality visual effects artists and better writers. One of the problems with having a larger budget is the tendency to go all out on a particular aspect of the film. Most recently, in movies like Jupiter Ascending, Batman V. Superman, and The Hobbit, a lot of the money was clearly spent on trying to make the movie look great, visually. The special effects are really good, but the story and the characters tend to suffer. Film makers like The Wachowskis, Zack Snyder and Michael Bay tend to put the emphasis on spectacle and not substance. Bay’s Transformers movies are a prime example That’s not to say that all big-budget movies are bad. Not at all. There are PLENTY of big-budget films out there that are really, really good. Movies like Terminator 2, which was made for 102 million dollars was a great film. X-Men 2 was also fantastic, and that was made for about 110 million. As I said, the success of this films depend entirely on who is at the helm. Peter Jackson made the entire Lord of the Rings Trilogy for about 300 million dollars. As I said before, big-budget isn’t always bad. I love a really great blockbuster.
Today, small-budget movies are generally made for 60 million or less. What are the advantages of having a small budget? Several, in fact. You don’t have the resources to craft an extremely visual film like Lord of the Rings, so you’re forced to be extremely creative in how to make your movie. You have to come up with ways to make certain aspects, like visual effects, look good while not going over-budget. I’m not going to list any movies from the Canon Film Group, because they were KNOWN for their low-budget pictures. Early this year, we got a really great comic book movie in Deadpool which was made for only 58 million. The resulting film ended up being the highest-grossing R-rated movie of all time with a world-wide gross of 757 million dollars. People loved it, as I did. I actually saw it twice in one day. Bone Tomahawk, which was made for about 2 million dollars, ended up being one of the best westerns I have seen in years. A lot of people share that sentiment. The one movie that really benefited from having a small budget was George Lucas’ Star Wars. Made for about 13 million in 1976-77, Star Wars became one of the highest-grossing movies of all time during that decade. It earned a total of $775,398,007, which equals about 3 billion dollars by today’s standards. Just one movie accomplished all that. Lucas didn’t have access to CGI or super-complicated visual effects, he had to invent techniques that nobody had ever done before.
Are there bad low-budget movies? Oh, yes. Look at most of Cannon’s films. There’s a reason those movies are called schlock. That’s a list for a different day. At the end of the day, there are obvious advantages and disadvantages to both low-budget and big-budget films. It all comes down to who is driving the machine. I just find it extremely interesting that a small-budget film can be infinitely more successful then a movie that costs 250 million bucks. There is something to be said for the “less is more” approach. More is not always a good thing, just look at Batman V. Superman. I liked the movie okay, but it was painfully obvious they used all that money to stuff as many things and Easter eggs in there as possible. It ended up ruining the experience, overall. You can have a great big-budget picture, but you can also have an amazing low-budget movie at the same time. At the end of the day, a good movie is a good movie, and a bad movie is a bad movie.