• UnderpantsWeevil
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    15
    ·
    5 days ago

    Supergirl opened to $37.1 million domestically and $62.6 million worldwide, against a breakeven point well north of $400 million.

    The thing that always gets me with these productions. Why can’t these big studios, operating at this size and scale, figure out how to produce a movie for less than half a billion dollars?

    It seems so absurd to insist “You’ll never see another Supergirl movie in your lifetime, because we lost $230M on this fumbled art project” when a movie like Obsession can be produced for a scant $750k. And even an action-heavy monster mash like Godzilla Minus One can come in at under $10M.

    This, as people scream about “The Death of Hollywood” in no small part thanks to the collapsing demand for practical effects, the shrinking cast sizes, and the Netflix model of production that refuses to order more than 10 episodes in a season. Abysmal days for the Silver Screen if this keeps up.

    • ApollosArrow
      Aquileo | link
      Aquileo | fedilink
      English
      Aquileo | arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I don’t really see how that’s possible for big studios at this point. In order to get costs down they would need to go into production with locked scripts and workflows. Big studios need to bring in money very quickly to stay afloat which creates a disastrous feedback loop. They would honestly need to not make money for about 3yrs while they slowed down and adjusted the foundation, which would bankrupt them. It’s already a runway train that can’t be stopped.

      Indie/small movies have a better chance, because there is no pressure on them. If it fails it’s usually on the smaller few who foot the bill for the movie.