Movie musical budgets (kinda rant-y)

When adapting stage musicals to film, I think studios need to rein in budgets. Musicals are hit or miss with audiences, so playing it safe is key. Eg: making Sunset for $30-35m is not impossible and would reduce the studios' risk immensely.

Hairspray would end up very profitable if its budget had remained around $50m, instead of the final $75m. There's no reason the shot-in-Canada, filled-with-unknowns Hairspray should cost the same as the last two Bourne movies ($75m each), which were insanely action-packed and shot on location ALL OVER Europe (a VERY $$$ way to make an action movie...).

I only bring this up because I want the revived trend of movie musicals to continue, and not die because of too many flops (Rent, Producers) and near-hits (Phantom and, yes, Dreamgirls*).

With Canadian shoots and CG-enhanced period detail and sets, these movies should not cost as much as they've been being budgeted. And talent will often work for less if it's something they're passionate about too.

(*Despite what some say, Dreamgirls was NOT a runaway hit. It cost over $70 and made $103. Factor in theaters' cut of the movie's gross and the HUGE, expensive marketing/awards campaigns, I don't think it really resulted in too much profit...)

A film is an expensive thing to make and especially a musical, you also have to bear in mind they are paying actors dancers etc etc for a lot longer than a normal shoot as they have months of rehearsal to.And thats just 1 extra cost.

To say you think they could do sunset on $35 million is Insane

---

Updated On: 8/7/07 at 01:06 PM

I'm sure Zac was able to negotiate a pretty hefty paycheck after he exploded with HSM, too...

---

I'd be surprised if Zac got more than $2-3m; he wasn't proven in anything other than a single hit TV movie. And surely Travolta and Pfeiffer (easily the most expensive castmembers) weren't a huge percentage of the budget. Neither had a hit in years. If they were paid more, shame on New Line. (Especially since Travolta's hovering between liability and lure.)

And I do know how movies are made and how they're budgeted, thanks. And they are ALL over-inflated, not just musicals. I just singled out musicals because of their precarious position with audiences and studios.

The upcoming Stardust also starring Pfeiffer AND Robert Deniro, Ian McKellan, and Peter O'Toole (not a cheap cast!) cost $10m LESS than Hairspray, despite being a giant fantasy film with effects in almost every scene, and location shooting in England, Iceland and Scotland. And I would bet that pre- and post-production for effects and huge fantasy sets rivals recording and rehearsals for sheer cost...

Also the upcoming Invasion (a medium budget sci-fi starring $10-15 million-earner Nicole Kidman) cost $25m LESS than Hairspray, with big crowd/action scenes, chases, vfx, etc.

I really think Adam S. just went a bit overboard... I loved Hairspray, but didn't think it look or sounded like $75m. Though neither was mind-blowing, recent tuners Idlewild and Reefer Madness were both made for $15m or less--about 1/5 of Hairspray's budget.

Yes, Sunset could be made for half of Hairspray's cost, if they really tried. Don't go crazy with over-priced "names" (other than perhaps Glenn Close), shoot in Toronto as per usual, and make it more intimate, like the original film. For $40m or less, it could conceivably be a success. Make it for twice that, and good luck getting co-financing next go-round, ALW!

(PS: I used the Bourne examples because of the HUGE gulf between Hairspray's Canadian shoot, and the Bourne movies shooting in Paris, Berlin, London, NYC, etc.-- some of the priciest locations and crews in the world)

Updated On: 8/7/07 at 03:24 PM

I know all that, but still-- $75 million? Compare that to Stardust-- all of those extra below-the-line costs were probably inherent there too.

(Though granted, Travolta and entourage are supposedly pretty spendy, though he famously flies himself.)

That was in my first post that started this whole thing...

Chuck and Larry has an $85 million budget.

I've learned that you can't compare budgets when you don't know what is going on behind the scenes.

You can argue that X-Men 3 and Superman Returns shouldn't have had the $200M + budgets they had when a film like Transformers, which was much bigger in scope, had a $150M price tag. But you'd have to mention that Michael Bay is good friends with the folks at ILM, and they provided the FX for Tansformers at a hefty discount.

I'm glad that Newline was generous with the budget of Hairspray. If they had been fickle, things may not have turned out as great as they have.

By weeks end Hairspray will have made over $100M world wide, and it still hasn't even been released in all its territories yet. And once you factor in album and DVD sales, well.. I don't think New Line has any regrets.

Updated On: 8/7/07 at 03:58 PM

Lets not forget Evan Almighty's $175,000,000M cost. Which has still only made $109.4M worldwide.

---

Updated On: 8/7/07 at 04:08 PM

There's no reason the shot-in-Canada, filled-with-unknowns Hairspray

Filled with unknowns?

You're kidding, right?

---

Yeah I was surprised that Hairspray cost so much to make, but luckily it is a hit movie so they're all set...had the film run out of steam at the 50 million mark, then they would have been SOL.

And Dreamgirls was definitely a hit. True it was expensive, but there's no way you can say a film that both made over 100 million domestically and is one of, if not the biggest grossing all African American cast in a film of all time is NOT a hit movie.

Once you factor in merchandising and DVD sales and rentals, then I'm sure Dreamgirls' profit was pretty impressive. Phantom didn't even make back it's production budget. It fell short by a few million. The two films are not in the same financial category at all...

Updated On: 8/8/07 at 04:38 PM

"Filled with unknowns? You're kidding, right?" Not kidding. Yikes! I goofed while revising and cropping a paragraph... I'd meant to say something about unknowns in several lead roles.

Yes, Dreamgirls was a "hit." But the studios spent a HUUUUUUGE amount of money just trying to get it to limp across that magic $100m line... The production budget was $70, but they spent a TON more on expensive marketing and awards promos. And people forget that a film's gross doesn't all go to the studio. A chunk of it stays in the theater chains' accounts (each week that passes, more of the percentage goes to the theater chain.)

And yes, I know that Transformers, Chuck/Larry, etc, all cost a ton more. But those are pretty much guaranteed hits with the non-picky Wal-Mart legions. And those inane movies can succeed OR bomb and they'll keep cranking 'em out. But if we have a few more Phantoms or Producers and the movie musical boom will grind to a halt.

I REALLY want musicals to succeed and take creative chances, not unwise financial ones. But I guess I fold. I never thought this would garner so much snippy feedback. Spend away, studios! Musicals died away before, partially due to overspending on pricey projects like Star!, Dr Dolittle, Mame and Hello Dolly. Could happen again.

You cant compare different films it doesn't work that way.

Your talking about Stardust which has cheap special effects and was shot here in england and scotland (very very cheap to film here).Stardust does not have big flashy sets , effects etc as you might think as they use green screen a lot in this film which is now very cheap to use.

You also cant compare Reefer Madness to Dreamgirls or Hairspray as they were made for 2 very different types of distribution.
Musicals are that odd breed of film that look like they could be made on a shoe string budget but in fact cost more than most average budget films.

Choreography, dance Rehearsals, singing rehearsals, a lot of recording studio time, longer filming times and so on and so on.

Sunset will be more expensive as its shot mainly in Hollywood and that is notoriously one of the most expensive and difficult places to film and its not like they can substitute location shots in different city s (ie Canada) since its all back lots etc huge film sets yadaa yadda.

Dont be under any illusion that its cheap to film these films

---

I think Coming to America would be the highest grossing African American "themed" film. Otherwise, Will Smith in ID4 and Men In Black, and Whoopi in Ghost make the Top 50 list.
Dreamgirls might be the top dramatic african american themed film. (unless you count Guess Who's Coming to Dinner).

But back to the thrust of this thread, I have no appreciation for what they're spending money on to get up to the 75m budget. Marc Shaiman has made clear, though, that without Travolta, there would be no Hairspray movie, so whatever they paid him, was worth it. Plus, I thought Travolta did a terrific job. But, lots of films are having these excessive budgets, given the box office/DVD potential.
Top 100 Adjusted/Unadjuststed