The L.A Times did a breakdown of the film’s costs today, and it’s looking bleak.
It’s a little scary too because the overwhelming costs of the film make studio nervous to hand over the keys to auteurs to handle big concept projects (see Baz Luhrmann’s “Australia” which is on track to recoup thanks to its global success, but it won’t be a slam dunk).
Or as the L.A. Times puts it, “The [financial] hurdles facing ‘Button’ underscore how risky so-called ‘prestige pictures,’ even ones showered with accolades, have become for the major Hollywood studios.
Here’s the math:
– Paramount and co-financing partner Warner Bros. spend $150 million to make the film.
– An additional $135 million will be spent to market and distribute the picture worldwide.
– Its Oscar campaign could exceed an estimated $10 million. This cost will probably rise.
– The breaking even point is said to the $300 million mark. That’s probably impossible to achieve onscreen unless the film sweeps Oscars and the film is watched the world over once again.
To put things into perspective, “Slumdog Millionaire,” cost $15 million, has already grossed and has already grossed $44 million in the U.S. (another $16.8 internationally and it’s just starting to open up in India where they are freaking out over its 10 Oscar nominations). The L.A. Times suggests the film has an excellent shot at Oscar gold (which it does) and could easily double its $44 million in the U.S. (totally feasible).
Times are tough. Don’t expect any ambitious, “Australia’s” “Where The Wild Things Are” or ‘Ben Buttons’ in 2010 or 2011. Whatever becomes green lit this year, will probably be modestly budgeted at least until this economic crisis levels out.