The Rise of Baby Blockbusters
A Cost-Conscious Approach to Filmmaking
Welcome to the debut issue of CineVibez HQ Presents: Behind the Camera, where facts supersede vibes. Twenty years of reading blogs like The Cancellation Bear and TV Grim Reaper left me with a deeply rooted desire to understand entertainment industry data. I don’t care what we’re analyzing; I’ll consume it all - box office returns, TV show renewals, streamer subscriber counts, and anything else we can visually depict with charts, graphs, and numbers.
Even though my dream is to find a way to predict the likelihood of ScreenRant casting rumors, the box office still fascinates me the most. Its data reveals so much about the entertainment industry, like what genres are gaining momentum or what a director could do on a budget. This newsletter will peek behind the curtain to analyze the box office, predict Hollywood trends, and highlight entertainment industry news - all of it supported by cold, hard data.
How do we know I’m relying on accurate data? I don’t have any insider sources, but I’ll be transparent about my public sources, and I’ll avoid the trades as much as possible. I’m mostly mining for data on IMDb Pro and learning about it from excellent sources like
, , and . I highly recommend all three as reliable, data-driven experts in entertainment data analysis. ESG’s recent story on the 20 Biggest Hollywood Myths alone is worth the subscription price.What about my training, experience, and background? Umm, I don’t have any training specific to the entertainment industry. But my day job requires me to determine the value of things and calculate risks, so those skills should transfer over seamlessly to my movie blog.
But just in case I suck at this, please correct and challenge anything I write. Use the comments section here, Substack Notes, Substack Chat, social media, or even my email address at cinevibezhq@gmail.com to critique, complain, or whatever.
The Creator: A New Kind of Blockbuster
For our first issue, I want to discuss my favorite story from 2023: The Creator’s budget. Entertainment data took center stage in this story which revealed a “new way to make blockbusters.” But, a deeper look shows that Edwards was simply doing what anyone does with a limited budget. He got creative.
The Creator is a fine movie, although I’m frustrated Gareth Edward made AI his sympathetic protagonist - just say robot. Anyway - I digress - we are here to talk data, not the mediocre plot.
How did a movie on a $80 million budget look like a movie with a $200 million budget? First, you hire a guy with experience in guerilla-style filmmaking AND big studio tentpoles. The budgets for Godzilla (2014) and Rogue One were $160 million and $265 million, respectively. In contrast, Edwards got his start making Monsters, which only cost $500,000. Taking his experience from both big and small-budget films, Edwards spent years tinkering with ways to give The Creator a blockbuster look without sacrificing a small country’s GDP. The fact that Edwards is fiscally responsible helps, too. This guy was embarrassed that he spent $80 million.
In his interview with Variety, Edwards explained that one’s first movie typically gets made “by hook or by crook.” Others described Edwards’ Monsters as a film made “with a lot of doggedness and a lot of determination.” It was just Edwards and Scoot McNairy filming bare-boned scenes in the jungle. Hearing Edwards talk about Monsters reminds me of Robert Rodriguez and his excellent book, Rebel Without a Crew.
Here is what Edwards did to reduce the budget on The Creator:
Start with a proof-of-concept filming the actors without visual effects in mind. Essentially, the visual effects are an afterthought.
Use a like-minded cinematographer like Greig Fraser. And don’t get rid of him if he can’t be on set. Just hire a trusted proxy (Oren Soffer in this instance) to be the cinematographer’s eyes and ears
Shoot natural landscapes in far-flung locales to create a sci-fi look and ensure that everything in 10-20 meters of the frame is REAL, not CGI.
Leave the invented CGI in the distance, almost like its a digital matte painting behind the actors.
Get rid of the motion capture suits and dots. Instead, watch the sequences in post and literally point out what you want changed. For example, Edwards would point to an extra and say, “Make him a robot.”
To further fill out the world on a budget, Edwards hired James Clyne as his production designer. Clyne loved the new approach, which created a more natural feel. Clyne said one typically builds the world from scratch, but here, he simply built on top of real, already-shot locations.
The best way to sum up the Edwards approach is to shoot on-location first and worry about the visual effects later. The Creator is currently streaming on Hulu if you want to see the result for yourself. I think it looks great. And there are some great “before and after VFX” videos on The Creator’s Instagram account.
The Edwards Approach Refined
A decade ago, Gareth Edwards spent $160 million to bring Godzilla - everyone’s favorite monster - to life. That’s a lot of money, but it’s still nowhere near your typical Marvel budget:
Endgame Budget: $400 million
Age of Ultron Budget: $365 million
Infinity War Budget: $300 million
The Marvels Budget: $274 million
Disney could justify the price tag because most of those movies made their money back on opening weekend, but not anymore. Now, people are turning away from superhero movies. I’ve seen some argue that the Marvel-cession, coined by
, is nothing more than a symptom of advancements in technologies like streaming and television screens. But that is not true. People prefer the theatrical experience over streaming. Just look at the numbers The Color Purple did over Christmas!The problem isn’t a disinterest in movie theaters. Nor is the problem the TikTok generation’s poor attention span. The problem goes further back to Alan Horn’s time at Warner Brothers around the turn of the century. Alan Horn was the President and COO of WB from 1999 to 2012. He started the “blockbuster strategy” that Marvel subsequently perfected. I’m currently reading about it in Anita Elberse’s book, Blockbusters: Hit-making, Risk-taking, and the Big Business of Entertainment, which sounds more like a Pat Benatar song than an analysis of box office returns. Elberse’s book analyzes Alan Horn’s “blockbuster strategy” in excruciating detail. Boiled down, however, the strategy is this: put all your eggs in one basket. You know, the thing your grandma always told you not to do. Horn spent most of WB’s marketing budget on four or five major film releases each year, essentially to manufacture blockbuster films. The first movie to test Horn’s blockbuster strategy was The Perfect Storm.
According to legend, Horn pushed the $120 million movie’s release date back to add more of the storm. Horn didn’t understand why the focus was on the characters, not the storm. So - he gave the filmmakers an extra $500,000 to shoot the boat during a bad storm. Remember the poster? That image cost $500,000.
The strategy worked. Horn convinced his WB cohorts to go “all-in” on four or five tent-pole movies per year while reducing the budgets on the studio’s other releases. Other studios started doing the same, turning blockbuster hits into franchises. And then the MCU happened.
Horn’s blockbuster strategy made studio execs lots of money, but it also took filmmaking and marketing budgets away from other genres. For example, we rarely see rom-coms anymore. Hollywood tried to revive the R-rated comedy this summer, but it’s still on life support (watch No Hard Feelings!). The list goes on.
So, while Horn’s strategy gave us the MCU and giant spectacles, it also caused a lot of destruction in the industry. The mad dash to fill streaming services with new movies and shows made everything more commercial (as if that were possible). Broad appeal became more important than variety. And the numbers - numbers became so important. Sure, I loved reading all those stats, but it was pretty obvious the industry lost its way. And then the tech companies began knocking on Hollywood’s door. Now a film is called “content.”
A New Hope: Godzilla Minus One
Don’t worry, this is when the newsletter turns hopeful. Franchise fatigue, streaming, and the pandemic struck some mighty blows to the film industry. When things are dire, you have to consider the nuclear option. No, not Oppenheimer. I’m talking about Godzilla.
Toho’s Godzilla Minus One reached the United States a few months ago. As of December 27, 2023, the film earned $75 million at the box office. A new black-and-white re-release will likely get the movie past $100 million. It earned rave reviews from critics and fans alike and may be my favorite movie from 2023.
But here’s the crazy part. The budget for Godzilla Minus One was less than $15 million. Takashi Yamazaki, the director, said he wished he had a $15 million budget. I don’t know how small it was, but look at the budgets for the four American Godzilla movies:
Godzilla (2014) cost $160 million
Kong: Skull Island (2017) cost $185 million
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) cost $170 million
Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) cost $200 million
Monarch: Legacy of Monsters (2023) cost around $15 million an episode (a guess)
Godzilla Minus One blows all of the above films out of the water creatively. First, Godzilla Minus One did a great job of perfecting blockbuster monster movie tropes. It’s essentially a reimagining of 1954’s Godzilla with ten times the heart. Yamazaki reimagined shots from past blockbusters to give the movie a grand, expansive feel with a dose of nostalgia. For example, Godzilla’s first scene gave me Jurassic Park vibes. Like the T-Rex, we got a close-up of Godzilla’s giant foot stomping on the ground. Yamazaki said those close-ups increased fear and tension. It was a no-brainer.
Yamazaki also borrowed a lot from the grandfather of blockbusters - Jaws. You have a great replacement for Hooper in Doc. The water scenes, in particular, put a huge smile on my face. Oh, and those water scenes were mostly practical effects.
Taking a cue from Gareth Edwards, Yamazaki filmed on-location frequently. It also seems like he only used VFX when practical was … well impractical. The result? A compelling film that immediately sucks you into its world, allowing you to suspend your disbelief. The raw, emotional script is just the icing on the cake.
Conclusion
As audiences’ tastes continue to change, Hollywood will need to have more variety in the theaters - and that’s a good thing. But to do that, studios and filmmakers will need to ignore Horn’s strategy and spread the budgets around a little more evenly.
This week, I’m seeing Poor Things, Ferrari, and The Iron Claw. After that, I’ll be ready to start CineVibez Issue 3: The Awards Season Edition. Not only will you get an in-depth analysis of this year’s contenders, but I also plan to reveal the winners of the second annual Archie Awards!
Thanks for reading.
— Murray