Spending to earn?
By Nick Nunziata
CNN Headline News
(CNN) -- The thriller "Van Helsing" is expected to have cost between $160 million and $200 million to make. That's a lot of overhead for a movie about a well-coiffed guy battling the creatures of the night.
"Troy" arrives in theaters Friday with a price tag that may very well have eclipsed the two century mark as well -- a steep cost for a film being released in a climate where many might ponder if "The Iliad" was the latest Radiohead album instead of source material from Homer.
Movie studios want to win the weekend during the summer months. Beyond that, they want to release the films that have what the business calls "legs" -- the lasting appeal to survive several weeks atop the box office amid competition. As a result the price tags for movies are getting to the point where it's almost impossible for them to get out of the red ink until long after they've reached home video. Still, more now than ever, money is being thrown at projects at an alarming rate, all for the sake of giving a studio both bragging rights as well as the ability to greenlight the next gigantic enterprise. Does it really have to be that way?
The average budget of last year's top five grossing films is around $111 million. No pittance for sure, but hardly comparable to the combined vault-crushing power of "Troy" and "Van Helsing." Those five films ended up grossing a collective sum on the sunny side of $1.5 billion, which makes the investment a very sound one.
This year seems to carry a motif built around spending more -- "Spider-Man 2" also is rumored to cost near $200 million -- but will the receipts deliver a comparable outcome to 2003?
Not likely. Americans are spending more and more money at movie theaters, but the numbers don't point toward the actual cost of the films determining how the box office sales turn out. Almost universally negative reviews and audience comments will most surely sink "Van Helsing" before it even comes within closing range of the $200 million mark, and "Troy" has had a tough time getting a foothold in the public eye.
The concept of spending money to earn money may work in some businesses -- George Steinbrenner certainly has found a way with his New York Yankees -- but in the film business, it just adds to the already thick stigma of the 'Wretched Excess' Hollywood is chastised for.
It raises the question: Why does a "Van Helsing" have to cost so much? Even though the money's not coming out of our pockets, it could cost the viewer in the long run. Would you prefer one big summer movie or two more-budget-conscious summer movies? What's more valuable, four movies at $50 million apiece, or two movies costing $100 million each. If the difference is less computer generated effects and fancy sets or high-priced talent, I'd choose the former.
Spending money to earn money is a concept that surely has merit, but where do you draw the line?
