Since its inception, the medium of film has been filled with productions of all shapes and sizes. Movies that run the gamut from shoestring budgets all the way up to the grandest epics Hollywood has ever told. This depth of diversity has long been one of the medium’s greatest strengths, as well as an intrinsic part of the art form.
That said, over the past decade, a disturbing trend has begun to emerge within the industry as a whole – the death of the mid-budget movie. Not only is this bad for audiences, but I would also argue it’s intrinsically detrimental to the entire system. Don’t believe me? Well then, let’s discuss why we need mid-budget movies…
A Primer
So, I suppose it only makes sense that any such discussion (particularly one arguing so emphatically on one side) should begin with a definition of terms. After all, without a common ground of understanding from which to begin, any arguments made could hardly carry much weight.
As mentioned previously, and as pretty much anyone who’s ever watched more than one movie in their life can attest, different films have different budgets. Makes sense, right? An historical epic following greater-than-life figures through key moments of the past will likely cost more to make (as a general rule) than a small family drama set in the present day.
Likewise, cost can also be affected not just by genre or topic, but by the actors cast in the roles. Getting Robert Downey Jr. to be in your movie will always be inherently more expensive than getting some B or C-tier celebrity… who will themselves be more expensive than a brand-new performer you’ve never heard of.
And all this is in addition to whether or not the film is being made as an independent or studio production. After all, studio productions usually come with increased price tags as a result of all of the internal regulations and systems in place… Not to mention the size and skill of the crew involved… Or how much of the film will be shot on location versus a set… Or how much licensed music will be in the film… Or how many visual effect shots will be required (from mundane things like “simple” composing all the way through Dune Part 2 levels of complexity).
This is just a roundabout way of saying that every film has its unique challenges and requirements, each of which influences the final budget. Generally speaking, however, films can be grouped into four broad categories of cost. [In truth, it’s much more of a gradient than actual definable “categories”… and one could certainly make the argument for additional dividing lines as well. For simplicity’s sake, we’re just going to stick with these, however.]
The four categories, in ascending order, are:
1. Ultra-low budget
2. Low-Budget
3. Mid-Budget
4. High-Budget
On the face of it, these four categories might seem to be fairly self-explanatory… and, at least in their relationship to one another, they kind of are. But it’s also worth noting that what’s considered a “low amount of money” to make a movie is rarely considered a low amount of money in many other circles of life. In that regard, it is probably worth prescribing at least some degree of range to these categories.
Budget Ranges
Ultra-Low Budget
Starting at the bottom, (in the modern era) an Ultra-Low budget movie generally falls somewhere in the sub-$5 million category. This can be anything from a $100,000 “no-budget” production all the way up to high-end independent films.
These types of films often have very limited scope, intentionally or not, or must find creative ways to work within their financial constraints. This can include paying people less than they would normally charge, creative problem-solving to achieve similar results to the “proper way” of doing things, or very busy days with fewer takes per scene, just to name a few.
As a result of their lower budgets, these films usually don’t have the resources granted to any of the other films on this list. They also, more likely than not, tend to be independent productions and are less likely to find their way into theaters. That said, success at this level can be meteoric – look no further than Paranormal Activity for an example of a film made for next-to-nothing whose cultural success skyrocketed it to not only being incredibly lucrative, but spawning an entire franchise of films.
Another benefit of the Ultra-Low budget category is that it allows much more creative freedom than some of the higher tiers. This is primarily because, with less money on the line, there is less at stake for taking a big creative swing. That’s not to say that people at this level are frivolous with their funding – far from. Just that there is less inherent pressure to try and make something appeal to the widest possible demographic – after all, even a small subset of the population latching on would be enough to drive these films into profitability.
Low-Budget
Moving onto the next category – at least by Hollywood standards – a Low-Budget film typically ranges anywhere from $5-20 million. Generally speaking, they have access to longer shooting schedules, larger crews, bigger-name actors (usually in smaller roles), and flexibility in terms of location work and visual effects.
These types of films tend to skew towards things like basic dramas, some lower-level comedies, and a good deal of the horror genre. Like their Ultra-Low budget brethren, with so “little” money on the line, the potential upside is still quite large. These budgets are also still small enough that studios and producers alike are usually willing to take decent creative risks, particularly if they come from more “seasoned” or proven creators.
Mid-Budget
Next are Mid-Budget movies. These can range anywhere from $20 million to around $100 million in the modern era. While in the past, nearing $100 million would have easily been considered High-Budget, the cost of film production in the modern system has grown quite a bit. These types of films usually have the ability to attract very well-known actors and can span nearly the entire gamut of cinematic genres. All but the grandest of tales are able to be crafted within this budget range and – while they can certainly still be costly – any individual failure is unlikely to bankrupt the studio.
That said, at least when compared to the previous two categories, there is a bit more risk aversion at play here… at least, depending upon where exactly within the Mid-Budget range the film falls. As always, the more money being spent, the less risk financers are usually willing to take. After all, no one wants to lose $80 million…
High Budget
Finally, we have the High-Budget category. Unsurprisingly, this is any film made over $100 million… a range that can run all the way to $300-400 million (a scale that, even a few decades ago, would’ve been considered unthinkable). This type of film has both the full backing of the studio and nearly unlimited resources. The sky is typically the limit when it comes to any sort of location work around the globe, all types of visual effects from top artists in the industry, and access to every movie star under the sun.
As a result of this abundance, High-Budget films typically tend to tackle subject matter that would be far more difficult or constrained in any lower-budget tier – science-fiction, intense action, fantasy, and superhero are all common examples. These are the artistic works where the studio pushes their proverbial chips into the center of the table, betting big on huge returns…
Returns that don’t always come.
Economy of scale
Now that we’ve narrowed down exactly what we’re talking about, we can begin by discussing the elephant in the room (that Hollywood has continued to ignore over the past few years): They’ve invested far too heavily in high-budget movies. And I mean this, in every sense of the word…
On one hand, films today cost astronomically more than the films of the past – and this is not just because of inflation (something wholly outside the control of the studio system).
A good example is that of James Cameron’s Titanic. At the time of its filming, it was the single most expensive movie that Hollywood had ever made, costing around $200 million. It was an eye-popping number and one that made pretty much every executive clinch their teeth. After all, while Cameron had been proven a reliable creator of hit after hit, this was an entirely different beast. He was essentially making a $200 million re-telling of Romeo and Juliet, set against the backdrop of the historical sinking of one of the most famous ships in the world… a shipwreck that while people had heard of it, was hardly a continual subject public interest.
Still, the film would require elaborate sets, cutting-edge special effects, and the physical recreation of a 3/4th’s scale version of the ship capable of being physically hoisted into (and flooded by) water. It was an absolutely massive undertaking, and one that required the best artists the industry had to offer and the accumulated knowledge of the entire art form of cinema.
Compare that to today: where (to take 2023 as an example) the Top 10 most expensive films of the year STARTED at $200 million (Pixar’s Elemental). From there, the numbers only continue to grow… Leading all the way to Fast X, coming in at an astronomical $340 million. These eye-watering price tags reflected a studio system confident that spending more money would inherently result in greater profitability. Unfortunately for them, they were wrong.
Very wrong.
Of all these expensive films, only two managed to turn a profit. While in 1998 Titanic managed to become the highest-grossing film of all time, the cinematic slate from 2023 served to do little besides drain the bank accounts of those that created them. This is because – much like in gambling – when you bet everything you have, your only two options are spectacular failure or unequivocal success.
There is no longer a middle ground – only a black-and-white dichotomy with very little wiggle room.
Worse Than You Know
Let’s also be clear here – the quoted numbers as to the cost of these films do not take into account the marketing budget required to release such a project into the world. In fact, marketing for such films often equals or exceeds the budget for the films themselves.
After all, if you’re going to be spending such a large amount of money, you want to make sure that as many people as possible are aware of it. That they feel like missing it would not only be a disservice to themselves but potentially put them outside the cultural conversation.
Unfortunately, this also means that for such high-budget movies to even begin to start making money, many of them need to crack almost $1 billion at the global box office…
TO. MAKE. A. PROFIT.
If that seems like an untenable situation, you wouldn’t be the only one saying that. Hell, nearly a decade ago, Steven Spielberg was quoted saying as much. [Who would’ve guessed that someone steeped in the art form of cinema might have opinions on its current state and future?]
In case it’s not clear, it’s worth noting that most movies (understandably) don’t make $1 billion. A few do, but they are certainly the exception to the rule – not the standard you have to meet to avoid being considered a failure. It’s an unfair goalpost.
Like expecting a runner at a high school track meet to match (or exceed!) Usain Bolt. It’s theoretically possible that one of them might… maybe… But it’s completely unrealistic to expect that ALL OF THEM WILL.
It’s a recipe for disaster.
Standardization
It’s perhaps unsurprising then that with such sky-high requirements for profitability, these films tend to be (as a general rule, with exceptions) the least innovative, boundary-pushing, or creatively risky ones produced. After all, if your goal is to try and make a mind-melting amount of money, the best way to do it is to attract as wide an audience as possible. And, as a result, you wouldn’t want to do anything that might offend (or turn off) any particular group…
Which typically leads to the path of least resistance: Tried and true, simple tropes. Character archetypes that are familiar and well-worn. Plot lines we’ve seen before. Paint-by-numbers storytelling and performances. How else could you possibly “ensure” (there’s absolutely no such thing as ensuring any of this) that an 85-year-old grandmother enjoys your film as much as a 35-year-old single man and a 12-year-old girl?
This equation is made even more complex with the addition of the global film market. After all, in the modern world, the largest statistical part of a film’s gross comes from outside of the United States. Because of this, your film needs to play just as well (and safely) for Chinese/Indian/British audiences as it does for an American one.
Now, I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to make a statement online before, but if you did, I’m sure you noticed (quite quickly) that no matter how straightforward or basic your precept is, somebody is still likely to take offense and argue with you. It’s just a fact of life, like how the sun rises every day. And that’s with a single sentence posted online. Now, extrapolate that into a 90 to 180-minute runtime, and tell me how that goes…
This lack of excitement or creativity is also likely (at least in part) one of the reasons that so many of these films (ironically) tend to underperform. After all, why would people bother to go to the cinema to see something that feels just like something they’ve already seen before? It’s old hat. [And yes, I’m aware that sometimes the inverse can be just as true – that people are unlikely to take a risk on something they don’t already know about.]
So, when it comes to these high-budget films, studios have locked themselves into a particularly vicious cycle: In order to make back their astronomical production and marketing budget, they must standardize as much of the film as possible and avoid creative risks. However, the lack of creative risks often makes the films feel bland and less enticing, thus resulting in overall lower attendance and profitability.
If only there was some category of film that would allow them to mitigate some of these risks while capitalizing on their strengths… Hmm…
Why We Don’t Have Mid-Budget Movies
Despite what it might sometimes feel like (when looking at the accounting sheets of the largest movie producers in the world), money is – in fact – not infinite. They only have a limited amount that can be allocated each year. As a result, if they spend their entire allotment on six or seven $200-million-dollar films, there’s typically very little left over for anything else.
What IS left typically gets thrown into the low-budget category, for things like horror movies. This is because horror as a genre is typically seen as one of the most reliably profitable and creative – with the aforementioned potential for grandiose success and very little financial risk.
As you can see, this leaves very little remaining to pour into those movies that typically fall into the “middle” category – the mid-budget film. They cost more than low-budget films, thus carrying more risk, while also not having the scale to tell the biggest stories on earth, thus (theoretically) limiting their global appeal. At least, this seems to be the thinking within the industry…
Which is baffling if you look at historical trends.
Throughout most of film history, including through the mid-2000s, mid-budget films were usually the most common type of film made. From dramas and comedies to action and adventure, pretty much every tale under the sun could neatly fit within this wide budgetary range. With this, studios had the flexibility to greenlight quite a large number of these films per year (as their resources were being more evenly distributed rather than siphoned off for a mere handful of projects). This didn’t mean that high-budget movies didn’t exist, mind you: just that they were – in equal relationship to their higher risk – fewer and far in between.
The studios were, in a manner of speaking, not putting all of their eggs into the “high-budget basket.”
Why We Need Mid-Budget Movies
I’m sure many of you will remember a time when you would walk into the cinema and be greeted by a wide selection of available films – from romantic comedy to horror, action-adventure to historical docu-drama, tear-jerker to sci-fi. There was typically at least one offering for nearly every genre, ensuring that no matter who you were, the multiplex had something to offer.
Compare this to today when, upon visiting most movie theaters, you’re often left with the sneaky suspicion that there is very little choice to be had. You either see the latest and greatest superhero (or likewise astronomically expensive) film – the type that tends to have PG action and a sort of inoffensive, snarky humor – or you see a horror film (or equally low-budget fare).
Gone are the days of seeing romantic comedies on the big screen (with a few exceptions). For that, you now have to turn to Netflix. Ditto for the categories of adult-oriented dramas, R-rated comedies, or gritty and graphic action films.
Why Is This?
Nearly all of these films fall neatly within the mid-budget range. They require a decent investment of funding to tell their story correctly while not being so expensive as to be “make or break” for the studio’s bottom line. These types of movies can take a moderate amount of creative risk, telling stories that might not otherwise make it with a higher price tag, while still managing to appeal to a moderately broad audience.
They are the type that used to be the bread and butter of not just Hollywood’s bottom line, but of the cinematic intake of the general population. People were trained that a GOOD MOVIE, regardless of genre, should be experienced on the big screen. Communally, in a darkened theater.
However, by entirely dropping the category to focus nearly exclusively on high-budget films (and relegating mid-budget fare to streaming services), Hollywood has now trained people that the ONLY films worth experiencing in a theater are the MOST EXPENSIVE ONES. Not that they have much of a choice… unless they want to go to the entirely opposite end of the spectrum. [Not that there’s anything wrong with low-budget movies. Many of my favorite films happen to be low-budget.]
It’s also the same reason that so many people complain that, “Hollywood doesn’t make good movies anymore.” Because it’s LIKELY TRUE that the type of film they like (unless it happens to be squarely situated in these tentpole, four-quadrant releases) no longer finds its way to the local cinema – because they aren’t being made.
Conclusion
As a result of all the above, viewers are left with a bitter taste in their mouths – feeling like their only options are to either rewatch their favorites at home OR to go to the multiplex and see one of the new “corporate-approved, safe films” on tap.
Now, this is not to say that ALL of these films are necessarily bad, mind you… Just that too much of a good thing can still be a bad thing.
But this insistence on ONLY focusing on the most grandiose of stories also hurts the entire industry. After all, if a film that costs the GDP of a small country fails to make a profit at the box office, that’s one hell of a devastating blow for shareholders. On the other end, if a movie that only costs 1/5th or 1/10th the price doesn’t see a return, it’s not nearly as hard to swallow. And the upside remains just as high, if not even greater.
After all, not only do fewer tickets need to be sold to reach the threshold of profitability, but the sky is equally limitless. A movie that costs $40 million to shoot can STILL make $1 billion just as readily as one that costs $350 million – it’s certainly not guaranteed, but having a higher budget does not necessarily give a movie an edge in achieving these goals… it only manages to increase the potential downside of failure.
[And it’s not as if the entire industry is blind to this: Look no further than the 2024 Oscars acceptance speech of Cord Jefferson (winner of Best Adapted Screenplay), who used his time to point out this very fact.]
Ultimately, in order to remain financially solvent and avoid continually playing a never-ending game of chicken with their profitability, studios need to realize that success comes NOT by spending ever greater amounts of money in the hopes of luring in every person on the planet to a single film, but by returning to their roots: By catering to smaller and more diverse markets. By allowing every genre the room to breathe, with less creative restraints and less monetary risk.
After all, you can afford to have two or three (or even MOST) of your mid-budget movies fail at the box office if the ones that DO succeed pick up the slack and bring in huge returns. The same cannot be said when a majority of your high-budget films fail, taking your entire year (and operating budget) down with them.
I suppose the point I’m trying to make is simply this…
Sometimes, less is more.
Chris