5
CGI fails to generate box office success
A hot air balloon is tethered in the middle of Hollywood Blvd for the world premiere of 'Oz The Great and Powerful.' The special effects wonder cost Disney a reported $325 million, most of which was spent on CGI.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Here's a fairy tale with a very unhappy ending. Jack the Giant Slayer -- you know the movie based loosely on Jack and the Giant Beanstalk -- earned about 28 million at the box office this weekend. A disaster considering Warner Brothers reportedly dropped more than $200 million to make it.
A big chunk of that went into special effects. This weekend, Disney takes up the cause with its own special effects wonder "Oz the Great and Powerful." The New York Times reported today that Oz is tipping the balance sheet at $325 million. What can possiblly cost that much?
The trailer promises an eye-poping, 21st Century Oz -- thanks to the wonders of CGI or computer generated imagery. And that comes with a hefty price tag, says Jason E. Squire, a professor of film at University of Southern California.
"There are two major costs to movies, there’s budget and there’s marketing," Squire said. He adds that Disney is probably spending about $125 million for marketing.
As for the rest of the $200 million dollars?
"For a high tech movie like this it basically comes down to CGI," he said.
Despite such flops like “Jack the Giant Slayer” and “John Carter” -- a sci-fi movie that was also chock of CGI but that ended up costing Disney about $200 million bukcs -- studios continue to make huge investments in special effect, CGI and 3D in movies, said Porter Bibb, who's with Media Tech Capital Partners.
"It seems to be the only way that the target movie goers -- 18 to 24 -- will pay to come to see a movie in a theater," Bibb said. The group makes up 80 percent of the theater going audience.
But with super-high-definition TVs and movies online competing with their attention, studios believe the only way they'll pay for a movie ticket is if it offers more special effects.
"I'm not sure I buy into that theory," said media analyst Hal Vogel. ""Because the box office, in terms of admissions, has been sluggish now for ten years. " And he says no matter how much money the studios spend on CGI and special effects, tickets sales -- at least in the U.S. -- haven’t kept pace.
I saw "John Carter of Mars," and the magnificent CGI (so realistic that I forgot it wasn't physical) that it half-way made up for the lame storytelling (granted, the original story was just comic-book quality). The same goes for Avatar, but the similar live-action "Dances With Wolves" had more emotional impact, due to its rootedness in U.S. history.
I, too, question whether the demographic that Porter Bibb cites really drives the movie business, especially in light of the global distribution that other commenters have said figures into studios' decisions. And don't forget, the 2013 Oscars for best picture, actor, and director all went to films where CGI played minor roles in the films.
I like a good special effect as much as the next man, but I'm not sure I buy this whole "we need super-special CGI in order to draw the 18-24 demographic" nonsense.
For one thing, I'm not sure I even believe that's the demographic keeping theaters alive. Every time I'm in a cinema, I rarely see that many "kids" under 30. Mostly, I see Boomers and Gen X'ers.
For another, the whole point of any good book, movie or television program is to tell a good story and tell it well. You don't need tons of CGI for that. Watch some great indie films if you don't believe me.
Disney, apparently, hasn't learned either of those lessons, even though you might think they were the masters of it.
I work in the visual effect industry, and had the pleasure of working on OZ: The Great and Powerful. I can't wait to see it on the big screen! I have a few comments on this story. The financial breakdown seems a little off. While I do not know the specific details of OZ, I do know that the star cast could fetch as much as 60K alone. Just to shoot the film: to rent the cameras, to staff the crew, to create the sets, the costumes, etc... could be 90K or more. PR, as you report could very well be $125K. You add that all up and you have a remaining $75K left for vfx (visual effects) not 200K. Of course now you need to do the math with all the rebates that the various States/Countries offer that the Studio took advantage of.
I also want to clarify the terms in your article: "special effects" in the industry describes practical effects like explosions done on a set or props hanging from wires. "visual effects" describe computer generated imagery.
Visual effects is at a cross roads right now. With so many visual effects companies like Digital Domain, Rhythm & Hues and many many others going out of business or are very near the cliff, the value of visual effects needs to be revalued. The budget vs returns, and where those returns are going need to change. If the companies creating these oh so important visual effects are creating such value for the Studios, but are being completely undervalued to the point of bankruptcy, there is a great imbalance in that business model.
There's a much bigger story behind the money of visual effects and would love to hear/share more.
I am in the same boat as darkerbrighter. For my friends who are not in the industry, I explain it to them this way - Look at an actual on set photo of a film. Notice how much green screen / blue screen is in the background. Twenty years ago, the union would hire carpenters, painters, and prop masters to extended the set. Studios would hire union makeup and sculptors to create characters to interact with actors.
Those positions are being shifted to the post-production department. In the eyes of the studio, it's cheaper for them to hire a post studio to create a digital copy of a prop, set, character, etc. than to hire those professionals at set union prices. I think this article simplifies the issue rather than exploring how complex this process has become.
There is a MUCH BIGGER story here. I would too love to hear more in-depth reporting.
There will always be movies of every type that one can point to and say "the age of _______ (insert thing here) is over". When you can look at the top 20 movies of all time and see all of the films on that list that could not have even been possible without "CGI", I dont think you are going to see studios abandoning the model anytime soon.
The era of looking at the success of a film just in terms of US BO are pretty much over. These films have performed so well at the global level and have such robust aftermarkets and sequel opportunities that make them long term money makers, why wouldn't studios keep making them. This is much less about a method of film making failing and more about a shift from looking for short term runs to looking for long term franchise winners.
oh, and Oz is looking to have an opening weekend at $80mil+ worldwide, so dont count that chicken, it aint hatched yet...
