$$$

There have been several relatively large Hollywood productions shooting in my area recently, including Jackie Chan's Shanghai Noon and Texas Marshalls. These are big productions, in the $20 million to $50 million range, and these are just two of the films shooting in this area.

I remember a time when a movie with a huge budget ($30-60Million at the time) meant a huge risk for the studio. Remember when 20th Century Fox was releasing the Abyss? They cut James Cameron's cut down by twenty minutes so they could get an extra showing in each night. Otherwise, they feared they wouldn't recoup their costs. They probably would've done the same thing to Titanic had Cameron not had final cut.

Film budgets have, of course, been escalating over the past few years. Most industry observers seem to believe that the unlikely profitability of Titanic is the reason, though I think the reason goes back further. Big budget films are a huge risk, but also can rake in huge cash if they do well. Even last year's mega-bomb Godzilla made enough money that a sequel is in the works.

Looking at this summer's line up, we see a myriad of expensive films:


Star Wars: Episode I - $115 Million
The Mummy - $80 Million
The General's Daughter - $60 Million
The Thirteenth Floor - $50 Million
The Matrix - $60 Million
Tarzan - $150 Million
Wild, Wild West - $175 Million
Eyes Wide Shut - $60 Million
The Haunting - $80 Million
Inspector Gadget - $80 Million

Of all these expensive films, very few look like they'll turn a profit domestically. Star Wars, The Matrix and The Mummy will for sure, The Haunting and Inspector Gadget stand a chance. Eyes Wide Shut is iffy (it all depends how audiences receive Kubrick's last work). Tarzan looks like it'll break even domestically, and the others are definite losers.

The reason this budgets have been allowed to escalate has been multi-fold.

First, A-list talent has become more expensive than ever. Whenever Tom Cruise or Jim Carrey receive a $20 million paycheck, someone else is getting a raise from $5 million to $10 million, and it starts to add up. The aforementioned Texas Rangers stars James Van Der Beek, and you can bet that the producers of Varsity Blues didn't pay nearly as much as the Texas Rangers producers had to pony up.

Another reason for escalating budgets has been a reduction of the risk on these types of productions. Wild Wild West reportedly cost $175 million to make. By most standard estimates, that would mean it has to gross $350 million globally to turn a profit. In the "old days", the studios would look to the domestic market for reclaiming their production costs and turning a profit, but now they look to the international market. International grosses used to be gravy, but now they're the bread and butter. The gravy comes in the form of home video.

Still, though, it only takes one major flop to send a studio belly-up. For example, if MGM's new Bond film, The World is Not Enough, does not perform this winter, expect the lion to become a smaller part of a different studio.

In the above mentioned films, several movies would lose money if they only had a domestic theatrical release. After international release, though, it would be very difficult to lose money. This is something which has been slowly happening for some time.

Godzilla didn't do that well domestically. The big lizard crapped out at less than $200 million, and considering how much it cost to make, that's far from blockbuster. When you add in the international grosses, though, Godzilla comes in at a much more respectable $400 million. This is why the sequel will more than likely happen (and if the studio is smart, they'll spend LESS money on the sequel). After video and DVD sales, Godzilla comes up a bona-fide hit. At least financially.

Also, the advent of DVD has been helping the studios immensely. The studios can now re-release their entire back-catalog of films, and get consumers to buy them all again. It's like the birth of the video market all over again. To put this in perspective, Titanic was originally released theatrically in December of 1997. It was release to video in 1998, then to laserdisc, and now, in 1999 it will be released to DVD. Sometime in 2001 I would expect the Titanic "Special Edition" DVD to make an appearance. As you can see, the revenue streams never stop.

What's the point? Well, the point is that Hollywood is gluttonous. Before Titanic came out, everyone was worried about escalating film budgets, and how the studios were really putting a lot of money on the line. I would argue that it's very difficult for a studio to lose money these days. Because of this, we can expect to see budgets escalate even more even as the studios try to get costs under control. The initial production costs may look cheaper, but back-end percentages and the like will drive the true production costs through the roof. For example, Mel Gibson made $20 million for Lethal Weapon 4, but that was just his salary. Never mind his percentage of the first dollar gross (estimated at another $20-30 million). No wonder he signed on without a script.

The last four movies James Cameron has released have all been the most expensive films of their time when they were produced. It's worth noting that all four films have turned a huge profit for Twentieth Century Fox (and Paramount, in the case of Titanic), and continue to do so. Titanic cost somewhere between $200 million and $240 million to produce. This was before James Cameron's back end deal. He originally forfeited his salary and percentage points, but when the film became a huge hit, those points were restored. Cameron's estimated take of the gross? A cool $100 million. Is the $400 million blockbuster that far off?

To turn to the issue of our own weekly business here at dvdfuture.com, I was surprised and delighted that Andrew Meyer got last week's quote right. Poor Andrew has now gotten four quotes of the week right in a row, but this is the first time he managed to get his name in first (he's the guy who always seem to miss it by minutes). He correctly identified the line as being from the classic Roger Corman produced B-movie, Death Race 2000. If you haven't seen the film, it's well worth seeing. Very entertaining, and very funny stuff. Be warned, though, the DVD box art promotes it as a Sylvester Stallone film, but Stallone's role is merely a supporting one. I suspect his face sells better than David Carradine's.

This week's quote is another tough one, this time from a film which is relatively new to DVD.

"He survived all those storms to be washed away by a few plastic lottery balls"

I'm also still looking for titles for this column (I may have to officially title it "untitled" soon). If you have any suggestions, send them in.

Send guesses for the quote, and suggestions for a title for this column to

ken@dvdfuture.com.