|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Budget Battle
After a non-stop week that mixed fantasy, celebrity, and triumph, Pete Jones had to report to work to begin making his film. From the moment he stepped into the LA offices, it was clear the fun was over.
A short and obvious observation on filmmaking: Before actors take their places, cameras begin to roll, and the crew starts to get fat on craft services, months of planning are necessary to ensure the studio that their money is being spent efficiently. This period of time is called pre-production.
But before Pete could begin pre-production and scout locations, plan his money shots, or pick out costumes for his actors, he and his producer team had to effectively negotiate some high-level issues with Miramax, namely the budget.
When it comes to budgeting a Hollywood film, Project Greenlight represents the exception rather than the rule. Miramax made it clear from the inception of the process that the winner would receive $1 million to make their film. It is kind of like making the picture frame before you know what the dimensions of the picture are. A significant reason that Evan Katz and Barron Ebenstein's script "Freeing Mr. Jiggs" did not win was because it was a funny, mainstream comedy that needed a major female star to drive the film. Impossible to do for $1 million. But Pete's "Stolen Summer" was doable for around $1 million, and this was one of the criteria the winning script had to meet.
When Pat Peach sat down to budget out "Stolen Summer," he came up with a number slightly above one million. His estimate of what this movie will cost: $1.8 million. "Sure, 800 grand is a drop in the bucket for Miramax. This is still a bargain. That one million dollar number was just a rough guess, right?"
Wrong. $800,000 is a significant amount of money to invest in anything, and Miramax was not about to whip out the checkbook, simply because they could.
Art versus commerce is that age-old battle that has been raging long before Hollywood was ever on the map. Miramax's eye on the bottom line is certainly nothing new in Hollywood. It does beg the question: When and how does a studio decide to spend?
The most visible answer to that question is star-power. When Miramax purchased "Good Will Hunting," it was budgeted to be a $9 million film. But once Robin Williams agreed to be in it, the budget more than doubled to $20 million. Williams did not take home $11 million, but the studio now felt they could spend a little more here and there to make the movie that much better. All of a sudden, a Robin Williams movie for $20 million seemed like a really good investment.
Stars do a lot for a film. Many stars have built-in audiences around them, and simply deliver more ticket receipts. Not only do we like to go see our favorite actors, but we assume that their mere association with the film somehow elevates the quality of that picture.
A studio will spend on a movie when it hones in on what the audience will want out of the film. If it is "Terminator 3," the audience will want Arnold, and the studio will have to pay for him. If the movie is "Godzilla," the audience wants the lizard using the Empire State Building as a toothpick, and the studio will have to pay for it.
When Chris Moore made "American Pie," the cost was low because he used new actors. "American Pie" sold sex with baked goods, and teenagers loved it. For the sequel, however, the story was still about sex, but from a producer's standpoint, it was equally important to get the same set of actors back. This created scheduling headaches and an inflated budget. Ultimately, Moore found a window of time to shoot the sequel, but it had to be in Los Angeles. Well, the movie is set in Michigan, and Moore then needed Universal to pony up even more money to turn Malibu into the shores of Lake Michigan.
There is no formula as to what makes a movie saleable. Paramount made "Clueless," a picture that cost $12 million to make and another $10 million to market, but returned $55 million and made Alicia Silverstone a star. Much has been made of the "Titanic" tab that Jim Cameron rang up for Fox, but few were complaining about the cool two bil the film took in at the box office. Paramount also made "Virtuosity" with Denzel Washington that cost $30 million, but grossed only $24 million. Disaster. Some estimate that New Line's "Town and Country" cost upwards of a $100 million, between talent, reshoots, and a location shoot in Manhattan. Receipts for that picture barely covered Warren Beatty's treadmill.
What is the solution? Does Pete deserve his extra $800,000? Clearly, a star like Emma Thompson would have made it easier to convince Miramax of this, but Emma, as we now know, is taking some time off.
As a result, Pete and his producers found themselves turning through every page of his script, looking for scenes, set pieces, and locations that could be eliminated. But on the chopping block were two things that Pete felt were absolutely essential to his film: That it be shot on location in Chicago, and that it be set in 1976.
Both Miramax and Pete seem to be at a stalemate. Would the picture be better with Chicago and 1976, and if so, $800,000 better?
No one said the business of show business is easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
