The Most Expensive Form of Art in the World
Written by jessel from on September 4th, 2008 | 6 CommentsSometimes I really envy painters and sketch artists. All they need to produce their art is a sheet of paper or canvas and a couple of pens and brushes. We as filmmakers, on the other hand, need ridiculously expensive equipment that we often can’t afford to own. Our canvas (film) is expensive. Even used canvas (short-ends) is expensive. To add insult to injury, we can’t perform our art alone. We need crew and actors. We have to beg friends and family to work tediously for peanuts, literally.
Ours is the most expensive form of art in the world.
And yet we fight on. We do it for our passion. We do it for the art. We willingly take mindless, menial jobs to support our dreams. Yes, I’ve done those jobs. I worked as a valet, in a call center, as an SAT tutor, as a messenger. You name it, I’ve done it. I’ve had so many odd jobs I can’t even recall them all. LOL!!!!!!
I bet many would-be filmmakers in Los Angeles and elsewhere can relate to my experiences. Sadly, not all of us can practice our art. Many heed the call of the biological clock and family matters. Many are forced to pursue other more realistic careers.
Considering how hard we work for our hopes and dreams, I still can’t believe how much money is wasted on huge box office flops, which brings me to the main point of this article.
Imagine a hundred million dollars wasted on a big budget flop. That money could’ve been divided up amongst 100 filmmakers and you would’ve gotten some pretty amazing work. Collectively, they probably would’ve made more money and given people jobs. I dug around the web for the biggest waste of money ever in film history. Here is a list of the decidedly guilty.
*Note: The numbers shown here are estimates from various sources. But you get the idea.
The Adventures of Pluto Nash (2002, Warner Bros.)
Budget $90 - $100 Million
U.S. Box Office $4.4 Million
This movie stars Eddie Murphy somewhere near Uranus.
Cutthroat Island (1995, MGM/Carolco)
Budget $100 Million
U.S. Box Office $9.9 Million
Geena Davis and Matthew Modine as pirates??? Where do I sign up?
Town & Country (2001, New Line Cinema)
Budget $85 Million
U.S. Box Office $6.7 Million
Yawn… This is a middle-aged sex comedy. Hey, at least it’s better than geriatric sex comedy! Although that might be more entertaining.
The Postman (1997, Warner Bros.)
Budget $80 - $100 Million
U.S. Box Office $17.6 Million
Kevin Costner + Post-Apocalyptic World = Flop. See Waterworld.
Heaven’s Gate (1980, United Artists)
Budget $44 Million
U.S. Box Office $3 Million
This is what happens when a director (Cimino) grows too big for his own ego. He shot 1.5 Million feet of film and went way, way over budget. He single-handedly took down an entire studio.
Ishtar (1987, Columbia)
Budget $55 Million
U.S. Box Office $12.7 Million
The name Ishtar became synonymous with the term ‘flop’.
Inchon (1981, Unification Church)
Budget $50 Million
U.S. Box Office $1.9 Million
This film was produced by Rev. Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church. What the heck is a reverend doing producing a movie?!? Who’s money was that? The patrons of the church? Jeez…they could’ve fed the hungry instead.
Battlefield Earth (2000, Warner Bros.)
Budget $73 Million
U.S. Box Office $21.5 Million
Another project borne out of a church. *shakes head*
Zyzzyx Road (2006, Independent)
Budget $2 Million
U.S. Box Office $30 Dollars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly 6 people paying $5 each watched this movie in 6 days!!!! Actually the official tally is $20 since one of the actors gave free tickets to the makeup artist and her friend. Couldn’t the filmmakers even get their own families to watch this film???
I could go on and on but you get the point. Who greenlights these films? Didn’t they hire people to read the scripts first to see if it’d be a good movie?
This is the sad state of the film industry, my friends. Studios are banking on bigger and bigger movies and bombarding us with marketing hoping to strike it big on the opening weekend before the terrible word-of-mouth gets out.
Whatever happened to diversifying your portfolio by investing smaller amounts of money in more projects? I thought these studios were run by ’suits’? Don’t they know better?
Anyways, enough with the ranting. You guys agree or disagree? Hit me up!
Tags: box office bombs, film flops, filmmaking, Films
















September 4th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
uy, ganda ng website niya. hehe
September 5th, 2008 at 1:08 am
I agree with what you’ve written here jessel.That’s why as a young Filipino filmmaker, I can go as doing more films with less. Let the subject or storyline market for itself.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:33 am
@neri - Thanks for visiting.
@Deyb - Keep it up. Try to be innovative with the story. Doesn’t matter what budget you have. Hope you learn more from this site. Thanks.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:24 am
regarding film as an art, that is still debatable… It has been a point of contention for some time now. i mean who’s art is it? the director’s (well obviously without him there is no direction), the actor’s (bad actors = bad film, the actors who appear in front of the camera or provide voices for characters in the film), the cinematographer’s, cameraman’s, editor’s, the producer’s, or the executive producer/s’? who owns it?
bottom line is, imho, the real owner of the “art” is the one who owns the intellectual property rights…
ps: nice wp template, peace.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:42 am
@Mantra - That was a very nice insightful comment you gave. Yes, I do believe film is an artform. But it is unlike most artforms. It is one of a few that involves numerous artists, namely all those you mentioned above. Imagine a large mural or sculpture that requires several people to create. No one person owns it. The entire group owns a piece of it.
But there is a difference between the creator and the owner. Someone can buy an oil painting but they wouldn’t be considered the ‘artist’. The same goes for film. I may own the rights to Citizen Kane but Orson Welles, and his colleagues, will forever be considered the artists.
As far as who we would consider as ‘the artists’ on a film, anyone who has creative input into the project should be included on this list. The director normally gets most of the credit because he is front and center and has the most creative responsibility in the success of the project.
Thanks so much for your words.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:39 am
right on jessel… right on!
peace out