Budget, Schmudget

The budgets of the biggest blockbusters have been getting absolutely insane in the last few years, to the extent that studios tend to do their best to hide what a film cost. Gone are the days when a film's poster would boast that it was the most expensive movie ever made like it was a good thing.

There's no real way to know any more just what the most expensive film ever even is. Titanic held the spot for a while, but now its $200 million budget doesn't seem that shocking. Rumours are that Spider-Man 3 cost $300 million, although the producers deny it was that much. Not only is that an unbelievably huge figure, it doesn't make good business sense either.

Budgets have skyrocketed in the last decade or so, exponentially more than inflation. It's mad that Spider-Man 3 is predicted to be one of the most popular films of the year but will probably barely recount its costs with the US gross. I love big budget spectacle, but I'm not convinced that the increased expenditure is worth it.

George Lucas said a few months back that he predicts average movie budgets will fall to less than $30 million in the next few years because they're just not making their money back. I think that prediction is a bit extreme, but it would make sense to see budgets lessen somewhat. In the current climate, a film that makes $200 million can mean financial disappointment, which is just crazy. Generally less than 20 films make even $100 million in any given year.

You may be thinking, what do I care? I don't run or have a stake in a studio. That's true, but I do love movies, and I'm always pleased to see films make money whatever they are (well, with the odd exception). But when an average blockbuster starts to cost more than even the most anticipated ones expect to make back, that's just madness. Madness, I tell ya!