May 23rd, 2012
Santino had some very smart thoughts about the big summer movie failures a couple days ago. I’m not sure I’m totally convinced–it seems possible that the real lessons of the three big failures so far are (1) Don’t let auteurs make giant, expensive, personal-mission movies (John Carter, Dark Shadows) and (2) Don’t make giant-expensive movies out of board games (Battleship). Both of which are lessons Hollywood has been taught in the past (Heaven’s Gate, Clue).
All of that said, the thing which is still blowing my mind is this:
The general unease is caused not only by the fate of Battleship but also the recent battering of other expensive films: Disney’s John Carter, which prompted a $200 million write-down and led to the ouster of studio chief Rich Ross; Warner Bros.’Dark Shadows, which sources say cost more than $150 million but opened to less than $30 million domestic; and Paramount’s The Dictator, which the studio says cost $65 million but multiple industry sources say really ran to more than $100 million after reshoots. [emphasis added]
The Dictator cost $100 million? Are they kidding? Woody Allen isn’t my cup of tea, but he could have shot that movie for $12M. Jim Cameron would have done it for $50M. This might be the most insane waste of studio money I’ve ever seen. Forget the box office results: Whoever greenlit the movie at that budget should lose his job on general principle.
-
Jim Cameron doesn’t get out of bed for less than $100 million.
-
After the Paranormal Activity movies I expected 50% attrition at all the studios, hasn’t happened but the Byzantine Empire didn’t fall in a day.
This 3D Great Gatsby movie does look like the worst thing ever made.
Perhaps its greatness will be recognized in due time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msFLf9x7s6M#t=1m38s -
[…] flop that’s only a flop because the studio somehow spent $100M on what should have been a guerrilla-style comedy (The […]
Galley Friend L.B. May 23, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Speaking of “auteurs making giant, expensive” movies, JVL — I’m curous to hear your take on the new trailer for Baz Luhrmann’s Gatsby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OULhlaX6JY4
I remember Ross Douthat was cautiously optimistic about this last year; he thought Luhrmann’s garishness might actually work well for a movie that focused on the book’s “wild Jazz Age ambience” while de-emphasizing Gatsby & Daisy.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/a-pre-defense-of-baz-luhrmanns-gatsby/
Based on the trailer, though, I think Luhrmann’s over-the-top style is not quite a match for the excesses of the Roaring Twenties. Gatsby is one of those books that screams “this should be a movie!” when you read it, but perhaps the magic of the book can’t be translated off the page (which testifies to Fitzgerald’s achievement). Thoughts?