Late last year there was a story about Gore Verbinski/Johnny Depp's Lone Ranger adaptation. The creators wanted a budget of $275 Million whereas the studio stood firm at $210 million. This might be an extreme example, but how important is "having your budget"?

We all saw what Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings and many respected directors (including someone like Spielberg) have created great pictures with a massive budget.

On the other hand, Ridley Scott's two best films (Alien and Blade Runner) had a very limited budget which forced the director to get creative. Since then, he's had mixed success with bigger budgets.

So, how important is it for a director to have his budget?

Ed...that part of your statement is so wrong I don't know where to start correcting it. By saying very limited, you're implying that Alien and Blade Runner were made for virtually nothing. An $11 million and $28 million movie is nothing? Plus there's inflation so I would guess that Alien and Blade Runner would cost around $100-150 million in todays money(Any real economics people, please correct me cause I'm probably very wrong...where's Holloway when you need him.) Ridley had more than enough money to fulfill his vision without compromising or cutting corners.

As for your thesis itself, I'm kinda with you. On one hand, it does force creativity to work with less..on the other hand, it does open up a world of possibilities. It's probably going to be a case by case basis.

A certain kind of subject matter--e.g. fantastical sci-fi--is going to demand at least a certain basic level of budget. That's just how it is. Superman IV is one case in which the budget was cut, cut, and cut again, and it showed. You can't make these movies for nothing.

That said, I do agree that having some restrictions is good for the creative process. When there is limitless money in the pot, then getting that money up on the screen tends to become the point of the production. E.g. Avatar.

So, really, neither extreme is for the benefit of the production.

It's odd that you would call Ed "so wrong you don't know where to start when you're the one who--by your own damn admission--doesn't know what you're talking about.

11 million in 1979 is 32.6 million in today's money.

28 million in 1984 is 57.9 million in today's money.

^a better way to look at it is the average cost of a film in '79 or '82 compared to today.
the budgets to Alien & Blade Runner were considered pretty big for their time(Heaven's Gate was the most expensive movie of all time in 1980 with only a 44 mill budget, while Titanic in 1997 was 200 mill. 'inflation' in Hollywood moves a lot faster than real world inflation)

Actually by 1978 Superman (55 million) was already the most expensive movie of all time

^ok. but like I said 28 mill was still considered big budget circa 1982. something like Blade Runner today would be easily be a 100-150 mill budget. heck, the average cost for rom coms today is more than 28 mill. wasn't that James L Brooks dud like an 80 mill budget? god hollywood is insane.

Money is essentially imaginary anyway (more so now than ever), so it's not quite so easy to estimate the actual value of the labor and resources that get put into a movie now, versus a movie of the 1970s.

I think the most illuminating way is probably to compare a relatively expensive movie to a relatively inexpensive one from the same time period. If we venture outside that boundary, we shall either go mad from the revelation, or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

I don't think a massive budget is necessary. Scorsese made Mean Streets for a half million dollars. Adjusted to today's figures it's still not a lot of money. Do The Right Thing was made for $6.5 million, Pulp Fiction for $8.5 million, The Wrestler for $6 million. All were great films, and all had small budgets (all things considered). Less is often more.

Right, certain genres of film, like comedies and character dramas don't really need big budgets anyways, since they're usually not effects driven.

So where does that leave us with the original example? What are they using 210 million on The Lone Ranger for? Open Range of 10 years ago had a budget of 22 million and was a pretty effective Western. OTOH I guess The Wild Wild West of 1999 had a 190 million dollar budget. I wonder how many "effects shots" they're planning for The Lone Ranger. That's a lot of CGI horses.

The west is so easy to make for cheap too. It's why so many Westerns were made back in the day--you could just drive 10 miles east of L.A. and start shooting

Among other things, money buys credibility. It seems ridiculous that budget would be part of the marketing of movies... but we're talking about it, aren't we?

a lot of its due to bloated salaries. I remember the day Jim Carrey got 20 mill for Cable Guy, it really blew the industry away(sort of like like the day MLB players started getting 100 mill contracts) and it sure as hell wasn't anything to do with inflation, that was a quantum leap up for a big payday for stars in the 80s/early 90s.

nowadays every flash in the pan gets a least 10-12 mill (for example, Colin Farrell got 10 mill for Alexander & Miami Vice! what the hell did he do to deserve that? the box office for his previous films was nothing special. I doubt the money Minority Report made had anything to do with his role. agents today must have a lot of risque photos of studio heads or something, the salaries of B listers are really quite baffling. seems like so many are more famous for tmz activities than their films doing well)

apparently 'How Do You Know' had a 120 mill budget. salary had to be a major factor in that, but even if all the stars got at least 10 mill, it seems unfathomable that something like that could cost so much.

What makes things really absurd is that there's very little evidence that audiences are willing to pay to see a particular actor any more. Very few actors who get paid 20 million dollars "earn it" in that sense

Town and Country also had a pretty ridiculous budget of 80 million, though that was mostly Warren Beatty's fault, since he kept on demanding constant reshoots.

There are some actors who i'm not particularly fond of, but even if they were in a particular film that I wanted to see, I wouldn't avoid the film just because they were in it, nor would I see a film solely because it starred an actor I like. I see films if they look interesting to me, I don't really care all that much about who's in the cast as long as the film itself keeps my interest.

So you'll see a Mel Gibson movie?

Yes, as a matter of fact i'm hoping his latest film How I Spent My Summer Vacation finally gets released this year as it sounds very interesting, and I still like his other films, I just simply wouldn't want to meet Gibson in person.

Yes, as a matter of fact i'm hoping his latest film How I Spent My Summer Vacation finally gets released this year as it sounds very interesting, and I still like his other films, I just simply wouldn't want to meet Gibson in person.[/quote]

I respect this