A 3 hour, character based, American drama based on an original screenplay. 37 million dollars.
My answer: only by a highly acclaimed director who could produce it themselves. Otherwise, there's no way it would get funded. All that matters now is money, so reboots, remakes, and superhero flicks will rule the screen for quite some time.
Having an opinion can save your life. Just ask Marvin.
[deleted]
Yes. Any film can be made today. It depends who is financing it. Ir's HARDER to make dramas, but not impossible. Plus it's cheaper to make films, so not impossible. It's ALWAYS been hard to get any film made especially character driven dramas, but it's never impossible. If it was impossible no one would have ever done it.
If a nobody filmmaker with a $900 Sony Ax-33 could get locations for free he could do a movie like this for less than a million dollars, maybe even less than a hundred thousand. Eventually movies like this could probably be made for less than a thousand dollars. I've seen some pretty impressive stuff made for next to nothing.
https://www.gofundme.com/sinnersbible
Having an opinion can save your life. Just ask Marvin.
Also I had to point out what I think the main reason the movie got made: Tom Cruise. The fact is he was one of the biggest stars on Earth at the time. If say, Dicaprio or Christian Bale wanted in a movie like this, the film would get made today. For that you need an awesome script. It didn't hurt of course that PT Anderson directed Boogie Nights before hand.
But think about it this way: would conventional wisdom tell you a movie like Whiplash be made today? No stars, first time director, drama?
https://www.gofundme.com/sinnersbible
But think about it this way: would conventional wisdom tell you a movie like Whiplash be made today? No stars, first time director, drama?
Low budget films are often HARDER to find financing than higher budget films. Plus it doesn't matter if a short film is made, film financing is hard, unless it's based on a book or play that's already been a hit.
I've known people with films that were made out of successful shorts, that have semi big names attached, that even raised some of the money before hand. They don't go anywhere.
Also I think that you will soon realize this is my signature.
Well let's just hope that Mr. PTA sticks around for another few decades to give us some more great films! Because I don't know if any other director could pull this off.
Guccipix, your top 100 is dope. Nice taste in movies there.
Hey, thanks man. I get a lot of hate in some areas of this site for it being full of films that are "too new". I love it though (obviously).
And in response to what you said about PTA, I agree, but I really hope he makes some more contemporary films, or at least something more digestible than Inherent Vice, which I thought was really messy.
That's what I like about it though. It shows you are open minded enough to appreciate older and newer movies. Like interstellar and 2001. It actually looks a lot like my top 100.
As far as inherent vice goes, that was a film that I enjoyed much more on the second go around. Kind of like all of his films, they get better with multiple viewings. I think PTA deliberately meant for it to appear messy. It's almost as if he puts us in the mind of the main character. after watching the film it feels like a total blur almost as if I was smoking throughout the entire movie. At this point it's my least fav. PTA film but I still like it and I think it'll grow on me more.
Yeah I need to see it again, maybe I'll like it more
shareI'd like to think so, but I agree that today it seems mostly big budget franchises and reboots get made.
_________________________
http://youtu.be/GAIJ3Rh5Qxs
There don't seem to be budgets for midrange, potentially arthouse fare anymore. Either teensy-tiny indies or superheroes.
I watched this again today for the first time since the film came out. Loved it then and still love it though my appreciation of some of the performances has changed drastically. Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore and William H. Macy were so OTT that they were aggravating. Not surprised about Cruise - the man can't act - but was disappointed that Moore and Macy weren't good. I blame Anderson.
But Philip Seymour Hoffman, Philip Baker Hall and John C. Reilly were brilliant. All three deserved at least Oscar noms.
Nightcrawler, Whiplash, The Founder, Birth of a Nation, Ex Machina, Dope, Arrival, Concussion, Focus, Snowden, The Girl on the Train, The Accountant, Kubo and the Two Strings, Anomalisa, La La Land, Sausage Party, Don't Breathe, The Shallows, Gone Girl, The Infiltrator, Deadpool, The Jack Reacher films, Birdman, 12 Years a Slave, The Big Short, Spotlight, Loving, Hacksaw Ridge, Fences, Manchester by the Sea, Jackie, Loving, Trumbo and Steve Jobs all say hello and nice to meet you! Each of those movies had as budget of less than $50 Million and more than $5 Million. Some of those films were legitimate blockbusters. Deadpool was probably the most profitable film of the year.
Mid budget films have been on as comeback for about 2 or 3 years now. The fact that quite a few of them are making $ and big budgeted films lost a lot means there probably will be a lot more.
Also I think that you will soon realize this is my signature.
NO. This film lost money. A director with clout still has to get the money from a studio in order to make a film.
Today a film like this might get made but it would be made for HBO and have a smaller budget
Okay explain Flight then. The director of that film had three straight box office duds, but they let him make a drama. Why? Because a big name star wanted in.
Again, the reason this movie got made the way it did was because of Cruise. He made six straight box office blockbusters before this film. If someone with that track record wants to make a film about Sock Puppets directed by Uwe Boll IT WILL GET MADE. If Leonardo DiCaprio wants to do a movie that is guaranteed to lose money they'll let him. Here's as little secret about Hollywood: A-list actors are ALLOWED to lose money. Why? Because studios want them to make OTHER movies with them. So if they think Matt Damon will do another Jason Bourne movie if he makes a movie that loses $10 or $20 Million, if his next movie will make $200 Million, studios will take the loss.
This doesn't work with actors unless they're HUGE names though. They won't do that with Jeff Goldblum.
Besides, no one knew the film would lose money when it was being made.
Also I think that you will soon realize this is my signature.
[deleted]
I saw it (starting in January 2000 when it got wide distribution).
shareYes, movies like this will continue to be made. And yes, movies like you go on to describe will also continue to be made. Don't give up hope. Artists will continue to prevail in the world.
share[deleted]