comment #1

Geo says ...

There needed to be a correction, NO ONE needs to make $20 million to make a movie unless they are the estate of someone like Brandon Lee who gets killed during filming because of negligence.

comment #2

Arash says ...

Forget 20 million they cant throw 10 million at dopes like Paul Walker and wonder why the film bombs, Paul Walker has benn in 3 of the biggest bombs recently from the 100 million Timeline, "into the blue" and then runing scared. I seriously think Hollywood studios EXEC NEED to think outside the hollywood bubble. Nobody cares about 70% of the actors today who "demand" 8-20 million a film. Good from the for cutting back on the gross point deals, why in the world do they have to pay Cruise 70 million a film, cause right now America would pay to see KEVIN DILLION in an action movie than Tom Cruise.

comment #3

lesterg says ...

This is long overdue. There have been so many films in the past 12 months that should have technically been considered hits ("Fun with Dick and Jane", "Superman", "King Kong", "Mission Impossible 3", etc) but were sunk by outrageous spending by their directors or excessive talent deals. It needs to stop.

Good God, I'm siding with management...

comment #4

nola says ...

amen, the studios have no one to blame but themselves. they choose to give outrageous salaries and more importantly back end deals that cut into their profits. It all started with Sony giving Jim Carrey 20 million for Cable guy. If Paul walker is really make 10 mil a movie I don't even know what to say.

comment #5

Mike Gebert says ...

The studios have no one to blame but themselves because they made the accounting so crooked that everyone who could insisted on a big chunk up front because they knew they'd get screwed on the profits. That's why stars who do get a piece of the action insist on a piece of something you can actually track, like rolling gross, not something you can always make vanish, like net profits.

What do you want to bet that the studios won't cut the overhead they charge all those productions? They'll still pay themselves tens of millions of dollars for overhead and marketing, even though that's at least as responsible for rising costs as star salaries.

The reality is, if studios are getting nervous about costs, it's because the DVD gravy train is running out. It was the cash flowing from those libraries that helped pay for all those $250 million movies-- all you have to do is look at how budgets shot up in the late 70s/early 80s when video first hit the scene, that was all video money flowing into those movies. Now that they've released practically everything (and some things 3 times), and downloading looms on the horizon, they know that the economics are looking scarier.

comment #6

ARTESTTHEBEST says ...

You can blame the the directors with final cut, and the the gross points the actor/director/producer can cut up to 30%, but the studios are at fault now when they throw sometimes up to 40 million to market a movie!? Sometimes thats before the dvd, then they throw another 10 million to market the dvd!? 50 Million to market your film in the AMERICA alone is financialy reckless.

comment #7

Walker Defender says ...

The guy who made the comment about Paul Walker is a fucking idiot. First off, Walker was paid less than a mil to do RUNNING SCARED (which might have bombed at the box office, but is cleaning up huge on DVD) and second: Walker's EIGHT BELOW was a big hit for Disney, especially considering it wasn't expected to do that well. And Clint Eastwood obviously saw enough in the guy to cast him in FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS. I know he makes an easy target for most of you haters, but the guy can deliver a good performance - did you even seen RUNNING SCARED?

comment #8

Edward says ...

I was pleasantly suprised by RUNNING SCARED. I seem to remember Jeffrey liking it too. Paul Walker is very good in this nasty, violent thriller.