Correlation does not equal causality. It shouldn’t take you more than a minute to come up with several plausible reasons why this chart doesn’t prove much. I’m not saying – I’m just saying, is all.
I think that’s a function of the reviewer – am I right you’d much prefer to watch a poignant story well written with gritty elements?
I suspect a director has the same problem as many people – the more money, the more likely you will spend it, the less the more creative and adventurous you get. What director would get a huge budget and not want to spend it on the latest and greatest technologies to showcase their skill, because they believe they can carefully craft the image, whereas a few carefully crafted words and a good story can do just as much …
Alternatively where’s the long term graph showing genre or some sort of category and your rating? Perhaps “remakes of a 60’s comic book” have never scored highly on the J scale.
It could also just mean that Julian hasn’t seen Iron Man yet.
These anonymous film budgets make me want to try and guess what these films were, but I can only come up with Indiana Jones 4: Revenge of the Script Writer being the $60 million+ data point. Could there be a Coen brothers movie or a Jason Reitman movie on the lefthand end of the curve? Are you willing to reveal your dark secrets Julian? Inquiring minds want to know…
I wanted to avoid naming the movies for the following reasons:
I didn’t want to embarrass the people who recommended/accompanied me as I watched these movies.
I didn’t really want to sink into the fruitless “How could you not like that awesome movie?” or even worse “You liked that piece of crap?” discussions.
I also didn’t want to get into the “How can you not have seen that movie until now?” taunts.
So, if I can avoid those discussions, here are the movies:
300: an epic and ultra-violent movie about how 300 anachronisms managed to stave off an entire army of CGI, by forcing them to fight deep in the Uncanny Valley.
Sin City: A movie about how a bunch of gorgeous, sassy prostitutes with hearts of gold, stave off an entire Mob army by forcing them to fight deep in an uncanny alley. Lots of violence, and very much in the Uncanny Valley again, but hidden behind the remake of the 60’s comic-strip format so it seems less objectionable. (I have just now found out Frank Miller also wrote 300.)
Match Point: A 2005 Woody Allen film that I didn’t know existed until yesterday. I saw this minutes before the post, and I think I would like to lower my rating a notch after sleeping on it; bit predictable in places and the dialogue in the police scenes was so cringe-worthy, I am still wondering if it was deliberate. I enjoyed it though.
Juno: A movie with a similar feel to Garden State. Apart from the animated title, no visible special effects and no violence at all. (Wait, I remember now. Some violence was briefly threatened, but the character realised it was pointless.)
Undoubtably. I am cursed by not much liking the most popular movies of the past decade. I hurriedly add that that doesn’t put me above the average movie-goer in any way. Instead, it leaves me sitting at home, dejected.
am I right you’d much prefer to watch a poignant story well written with gritty elements?
Sure; but am I alone there?
What director would get a huge budget and not want to spend it on the latest and greatest technologies to showcase their skill
To me, the real mystery is why the high-budget films that I have watched don’t also have the good stories? Aren’t good writers relatively cheap? Don’t the low-budget films prove that?
Here are some ways to counter my own argument:
The movie 300 was based on a famous story, the legend of the Battle of Thermopylae. How could I possibly argue that there isn’t a poignant, gritty story there. It has been told and retold for 2,400 years!
Perhaps poignant, gritty stories aren’t that reliable. Perhaps for every Clerks (budget: $27,000 or $230,000 depending on how you count) there are 100 other poignant, gritty stories that bombed and I never saw. (Actually, better make that 200 other stories; Clerks grossed over 100 times its budget.)
Perhaps the big budget isn’t just spent on the special effects, but is spent on big promotion, that is successful in making everyone, even me, see crap movies. In that sense, it is money well spent.
Let me explain that same concept another way: Suppose the world worked like this – If your movie was good, everyone would see it. If it was bad, people would only see it if you promoted it hard. Then, producers would be forced to spend a big budget on promoting any bad movies that they find themselves stuck with. As a customer, the upshot would be you would get a graph that looked like the one above.
where’s the long term graph showing genre or some sort of category and your rating?
I’ve gotten myself in trouble here before! I’ve been shot down when I have made the claim “As an adult, I have never seen a G-rated movie that I like.” (The Princess Bride was the counter-example.) and “No movie re-made from a computer game was any good.” (People offered me counter-examples, and I had to say “Never saw it; it was re-made from a computer game, so I avoided it.”)
I may have made a similar claim about comic strips re-makes; I can’t remember.
What director would get a huge budget and not want to spend it on the latest and greatest technologies to showcase their skill
I honestly think the percentage of directors that fit this description is pretty small. I think most directors’ idea of “skill” involves things other than technology. Thus, if they had to spend a huge amount of money, I suspect they would first make sure they got the best actors. (Even if writers are higher on the list, they are quite a lot cheaper, as Julian has pointed out.)
Alternatively where’s the long term graph showing genre or some sort of category and your rating? Perhaps “remakes of a 60’s comic book†have never scored highly on the J scale.
This ties into the money issue very strongly. Some genres of film are simply more expensive to make than others. If you happen to generally not like action films and generally like “dialoguey” films, you will almost unavoidably wind up with a graph similar to Julian’s. Which is not to disagree with Mr Rohan on this point; in fact, I may have just restated his view.
Mr R’s point about risk probably doesn’t count with this sample. Both 300 and Sin City were from Frank Miller. He’s very particular about how his movies are made. The guy who wanted to make Sin City pretty much had to make a chunk of the movie, went up to Frank and said “this is what it’s going to look like and you get to sit in while it’s being made”. Giving that much power to the writer (esp. when it’s “some comic book guy”) is suicide for a “big budget” movie.
Actually, it’s interesting you’re talking about writing when the Miller movies are pretty much about the writer taking control. There are others where the writer pretty much loses everything he wanted in the movies (even some really popular low budget movies were ones where the writer thought their work was butchered). 300 and Sin City are what Miller wanted to make. They’re very visual because he’s a comic book dude. Comic book movies may not be for you.
Budget is really correlated with what you get out of a movie. Having a movie where someone gets pregnant, sasses someone, then cries a bit or something doesn’t really require a lot of money. Comedy is also something which is rarely enhanced by throwing money at the problem (Even paying a hit-man to kill Woody Allen doesn’t cost that much).
I can also point you to a bunch of bad low budget movies. The reason a lot of low budget movies are good is that there’s simply so many of them. Lord of the Rings by contrast was a trilogy of big budget movies which were freaking sweet.
I think it’s fair to say your sample size is too small and has far too much selection effect (the two biggest budget movies were also Frank Miller) to form any basis for statistical analysis. I can, however, diss Woody Allen some more if you like.
Giving that much power to the writer […] is suicide for a “big budget” movie.
Sin City cost an estimated $40m, and grossed $159m [Ref]. Suicide?
the Miller movies are pretty much about the writer taking control.
As opposed to Match Point (written by Woody Allen, directed by Woody Allen, with his regular executive producers)?
I think I take your point though. I can’t claim that these big budget movies didn’t spend enough on writers when an established writer had significant artistic influence.
No fair. This reference suggests that I am putting myself out there as a “critic”. I don’t make that claim.
In any case, Jersey Girl wasn’t for the critics, but who was it for? The regular audiences didn’t seem to go for it either. (And I speak here as a Kevin Smith fan.)
Having a movie where someone gets pregnant, sasses someone, then cries a bit or something doesn’t really require a lot of money. Comedy is also something which is rarely enhanced by throwing money at the problem
Right, so the hypothesis here seems to be: There are a category of films Julian doesn’t like (perhaps ultra-violent? perhaps period drama?). That category of films is expensive to make. Therefore, there is a negative correlation between big budget and Julian’s ratings.
That seems to work. That would give us the graph above.
I have yet another conjecture to throw in here, no extra charge. Director says “Hey, we haven’t had a movie for a while that would appeal to unicycling bloggers.” Producer says “True, but market research says that isn’t a big group. I can only offer you a budget of $1m. On the other hand, if you do another nostalgic appeal to 60s comic books readers, and drag in the teenagers with some violence, explosions and tasteful smut, I can get you $50m.”
That would also get the same graph.
I think it’s fair to say your sample size is too small
Agreed.
and has far too much selection effect (the two biggest budget movies were also Frank Miller)
True; but that was a coincidence. I didn’t realise 300 and Sin City was by the same writer until commenting on this post.
I can, however, diss Woody Allen some more if you like.
That won’t be necessary. He seems capable of self-destructing without your help, and I have no desire to pit your taste in movies against mine. I see no beneficial outcome there.
For the record, I watched Jersey Girl the other day for the first time. While I can understand some Kevin Smith fans not liking it because it was different to his other movies, I quietly enjoyed it.
It was no Clerks, Dogma or Chasing Amy, but it was a fine movie.
Articles
Comment by Mr Rohan on June 20, 2008
I think that’s a function of the reviewer – am I right you’d much prefer to watch a poignant story well written with gritty elements?
I suspect a director has the same problem as many people – the more money, the more likely you will spend it, the less the more creative and adventurous you get. What director would get a huge budget and not want to spend it on the latest and greatest technologies to showcase their skill, because they believe they can carefully craft the image, whereas a few carefully crafted words and a good story can do just as much …
Alternatively where’s the long term graph showing genre or some sort of category and your rating? Perhaps “remakes of a 60’s comic book” have never scored highly on the J scale.
Comment by Richard Atkins on June 20, 2008
It could also just mean that Julian hasn’t seen Iron Man yet.
These anonymous film budgets make me want to try and guess what these films were, but I can only come up with Indiana Jones 4: Revenge of the Script Writer being the $60 million+ data point. Could there be a Coen brothers movie or a Jason Reitman movie on the lefthand end of the curve? Are you willing to reveal your dark secrets Julian? Inquiring minds want to know…
Comment by Julian on June 20, 2008
I wanted to avoid naming the movies for the following reasons:
So, if I can avoid those discussions, here are the movies:
I plan to see Iron Man shortly.
Comment by Julian on June 20, 2008
Undoubtably. I am cursed by not much liking the most popular movies of the past decade. I hurriedly add that that doesn’t put me above the average movie-goer in any way. Instead, it leaves me sitting at home, dejected.
Sure; but am I alone there?
To me, the real mystery is why the high-budget films that I have watched don’t also have the good stories? Aren’t good writers relatively cheap? Don’t the low-budget films prove that?
Here are some ways to counter my own argument:
The movie 300 was based on a famous story, the legend of the Battle of Thermopylae. How could I possibly argue that there isn’t a poignant, gritty story there. It has been told and retold for 2,400 years!
Perhaps poignant, gritty stories aren’t that reliable. Perhaps for every Clerks (budget: $27,000 or $230,000 depending on how you count) there are 100 other poignant, gritty stories that bombed and I never saw. (Actually, better make that 200 other stories; Clerks grossed over 100 times its budget.)
Perhaps the big budget isn’t just spent on the special effects, but is spent on big promotion, that is successful in making everyone, even me, see crap movies. In that sense, it is money well spent.
Let me explain that same concept another way: Suppose the world worked like this – If your movie was good, everyone would see it. If it was bad, people would only see it if you promoted it hard. Then, producers would be forced to spend a big budget on promoting any bad movies that they find themselves stuck with. As a customer, the upshot would be you would get a graph that looked like the one above.
I’ve gotten myself in trouble here before! I’ve been shot down when I have made the claim “As an adult, I have never seen a G-rated movie that I like.” (The Princess Bride was the counter-example.) and “No movie re-made from a computer game was any good.” (People offered me counter-examples, and I had to say “Never saw it; it was re-made from a computer game, so I avoided it.”)
I may have made a similar claim about comic strips re-makes; I can’t remember.
Comment by John Y. on June 20, 2008
I honestly think the percentage of directors that fit this description is pretty small. I think most directors’ idea of “skill” involves things other than technology. Thus, if they had to spend a huge amount of money, I suspect they would first make sure they got the best actors. (Even if writers are higher on the list, they are quite a lot cheaper, as Julian has pointed out.)
This ties into the money issue very strongly. Some genres of film are simply more expensive to make than others. If you happen to generally not like action films and generally like “dialoguey” films, you will almost unavoidably wind up with a graph similar to Julian’s. Which is not to disagree with Mr Rohan on this point; in fact, I may have just restated his view.
Comment by Sunny Kalsi on June 21, 2008
Mr R’s point about risk probably doesn’t count with this sample. Both 300 and Sin City were from Frank Miller. He’s very particular about how his movies are made. The guy who wanted to make Sin City pretty much had to make a chunk of the movie, went up to Frank and said “this is what it’s going to look like and you get to sit in while it’s being made”. Giving that much power to the writer (esp. when it’s “some comic book guy”) is suicide for a “big budget” movie.
Actually, it’s interesting you’re talking about writing when the Miller movies are pretty much about the writer taking control. There are others where the writer pretty much loses everything he wanted in the movies (even some really popular low budget movies were ones where the writer thought their work was butchered). 300 and Sin City are what Miller wanted to make. They’re very visual because he’s a comic book dude. Comic book movies may not be for you.
Budget is really correlated with what you get out of a movie. Having a movie where someone gets pregnant, sasses someone, then cries a bit or something doesn’t really require a lot of money. Comedy is also something which is rarely enhanced by throwing money at the problem (Even paying a hit-man to kill Woody Allen doesn’t cost that much).
I can also point you to a bunch of bad low budget movies. The reason a lot of low budget movies are good is that there’s simply so many of them. Lord of the Rings by contrast was a trilogy of big budget movies which were freaking sweet.
I think it’s fair to say your sample size is too small and has far too much selection effect (the two biggest budget movies were also Frank Miller) to form any basis for statistical analysis. I can, however, diss Woody Allen some more if you like.
Comment by Julian on June 21, 2008
Sin City cost an estimated $40m, and grossed $159m [Ref]. Suicide?
As opposed to Match Point (written by Woody Allen, directed by Woody Allen, with his regular executive producers)?
I think I take your point though. I can’t claim that these big budget movies didn’t spend enough on writers when an established writer had significant artistic influence.
No fair. This reference suggests that I am putting myself out there as a “critic”. I don’t make that claim.
In any case, Jersey Girl wasn’t for the critics, but who was it for? The regular audiences didn’t seem to go for it either. (And I speak here as a Kevin Smith fan.)
Right, so the hypothesis here seems to be: There are a category of films Julian doesn’t like (perhaps ultra-violent? perhaps period drama?). That category of films is expensive to make. Therefore, there is a negative correlation between big budget and Julian’s ratings.
That seems to work. That would give us the graph above.
I have yet another conjecture to throw in here, no extra charge. Director says “Hey, we haven’t had a movie for a while that would appeal to unicycling bloggers.” Producer says “True, but market research says that isn’t a big group. I can only offer you a budget of $1m. On the other hand, if you do another nostalgic appeal to 60s comic books readers, and drag in the teenagers with some violence, explosions and tasteful smut, I can get you $50m.”
That would also get the same graph.
Agreed.
True; but that was a coincidence. I didn’t realise 300 and Sin City was by the same writer until commenting on this post.
That won’t be necessary. He seems capable of self-destructing without your help, and I have no desire to pit your taste in movies against mine. I see no beneficial outcome there.
Comment by Julian on December 2, 2008
For the record, I watched Jersey Girl the other day for the first time. While I can understand some Kevin Smith fans not liking it because it was different to his other movies, I quietly enjoyed it.
It was no Clerks, Dogma or Chasing Amy, but it was a fine movie.