I guess that the movie studios are surprised that The Terminal and 80 Days did so poorly. Well, I'm not. 80 Days looks like one of the worst films of the year.
For the most part, it seems that when a film has an incredibly high budget it is going to be doomed to fail. People want to see a good film which does not necessarily equate with spending a lot of money.
Dodgeball's ability to recoup its costs in two days is all the more impressive in contrast to Around the World in 80 Days, which cost an estimated $100m to make, and took less than 10% of that on its crucial opening weekend.
Obviously, my general impression must be wrong or studios wouldn't continue to waste their money, no? I'm going to research this a little and see what correlation there is between spending a lot of money on a film and it's success.
Obviously a studio can spend a lot of money on high priced stars like Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts. Sometimes the studios might spend a lot of money on special effects and action scenes (eh, Waterworld?).
Do movie studios usually spend a lot of money on scripts or screenwriters? That's what I like to go to the movie for. I don't care to see the next role Tom Hanks acts in. I rarely go to movies for the star but I enjoy when a good actor is in a movie I like (e.g. Bill Murray in Rushmore/Royal Tennenbaums, Edward Norton in Fight Club, and Phillip Seymore Hoffman in Magnolia). I also don't go to the movies just for the action scenes. If they are mixed in with a good movie (e.g. Kill Bill) then I'm happy to see them.
I guess the point is the budget of a movie, the actors in it, or even how cool the action is going to be is not enough to draw me to a film. I want an interesting plot, screenwriters who I think are talented, and sometimes the independent spirit that makes me love the cinema.
