Big Budget Bland

by Conroy

The epitome of the mega-budget movie

We live in the era of the mega-budget movie. Those films that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and tens of millions more to market. By my count, in the last seven years there have been eighteen movies with a production budget of at least $200 million (see table below). These movies share one characteristic – they’re dominated by digital effects.

Back in 1998 David Foster Wallace skewered Hollywood for enthusiastically embracing what he termed the “F/X Porn” genre: Mega-budget movies that feature massive doses of highly effective, sensuous special effects, but very little character or plot. Prominent examples from the 1990s include Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Jurassic Park [1], and Twister. He likened these movies to pornography – instead of porn’s prurient carnality, there are a few elaborate, terrifically convincing effects sequences separated by long segments of vapid, formulaic storytelling.

Wallace cited the Inverse Cost and Quality Law, which may sound like a concept plucked from a microeconomics textbook, but was actually his invention. Stated simply, the “ICQL” says, “the larger a movie’s budget is, the shittier that movie is going to be.” For a movie snob like me, this idea seems so obvious that I’m embarrassed I didn’t articulate something similar. When Wallace developed the ICQL, it hadn’t been that long since “T2” and Jurassic Park revolutionized the scope and role of special effects. They were no longer a feature of many big budget movies; effects became their very reason for being. The ICQL posits that mega-budget effects movies need a bankable star, a simple plot relying on proven formulas and easy sentiment, and lots of distracting digital effects. In addition, corollaries to the ICQL state that (a) the more lavish the effects the worse the non-effects parts of the movie will be, and (b) the necessities of a mega-budget-effects movie will subsume the creativity and originality in even the most talented director [2].

Maybe the first "F/X Porn" movie

The upshot of the ICQL is that mega-budget movies are stripped of what attracts people to storytelling in the first place, namely characters and plot. These elements have been the foundation of storytelling since the oral tradition of our distant ancestors. I love movies because, to paraphrase Martin Scorsese, they are our dreams brought to life. Movies offer a different experience (and better in many ways) than novels or plays or poems, or any of the other media we have to express our innate drive to tell stories – to communicate our human experience. Movies bring together sight and sound and humanity in ways unmatchable by other forms. That's what's so disappointing about mega-budget-effects movies, as the ICQL says, these movies abandon the core tenets of good storytelling and focus on distracting our minds by overwhelming our senses.

Two rhetorical questions: How many lines of dialogue can you remember from your favorite movie? What do those words, coming from those characters, mean to you? Two follow-up rhetorical questions: How many of the dazzling special effects sequences can you describe, in detail, from one of the recent mega-budget-effects movies? What do those effects sequence mean to you?





Testing the ICQL
So is the ICQL true? It’s easy to make snap judgments about mega-budget-effects movies, but are they really nothing but “F/X Porn?”

Now, technically, a “law” in the sense of describing a physical reality – or in this case a reality of Hollywood (certainly not the same thing, but following the intent of what Wallace was after) – should be universal and invariable. Like, for example, Gravity or the Conservation of Energy. Are mega-budget-effects movies as guaranteed to be terrible as the apple is certain to fall from the tree? Fortunately, we can test the idea, or what I’ll temporarily rename the Inverse Cost and Quality Hypothesis (ICQH).

It’s been more than a decade since Wallace’s article and I doubt even he could have perceived just how common mega-budget movies would become. Even accounting for inflation, 25 of the 30 most expensive movies have been made since 2000, and if we go back to 1995 that number rises to 28 of the top 30. Let’s list these 28 movies, their costs (with and without inflation), general critical opinion, and box office performance:

Film	Year	Cost ($M)		Metacritic Rating	Rotten Tomatoes Rating	Box Office ($M)
		Initial	w/ Inflation
Avatar	2009	$460	$470	83	83%	$2,782
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End	2007	$300	$320	50	45%	$963
Titanic	1997	$220	$275	74	83%	$1,843
Spider-Man 3	2007	$258	$275	59	63%	$891
Tangled	2010	$260	$260	71	89%	$591
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince	2009	$250	$255	78	83%	$934
Waterworld	1995	$172	$250	56	43%	$264
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest	2006	$225	$245	53	54%	$1,066
King Kong	2005	$207	$235	81	84%	$551
Spider-Man 2	2004	$200	$235	83	93%	$784
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian	2008	$225	$230	62	68%	$430
X-Men: The Last Stand	2006	$210	$230	58	57%	$459
Superman Returns	2006	$209	$230	72	76%	$391
Wild Wild West	1999	$170	$225	38	21%	$222
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen	2009	$200	$205	35	20%	$836
2012	2009	$200	$205	49	39%	$770
Terminator Salvation	2009	$200	$205	52	33%	$371
Quantum of Solace	2008	$200	$205	58	64%	$586
Troy	2004	$175	$200	56	55%	$497
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines	2003	$170	$200	66	71%	$433
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion…	2005	$180	$200	75	76%	$745
Toy Story 3	2010	$200	$200	92	99%	$1,063
Green Lantern	2011	$200	$200	39	27%	$220
Cars 2	2011	$200	$200	57	38%	$552
Transformers: Dark of the Moon	2011	$195	$195	42	35%	$1,122
The Golden Compass	2007	$180	$190	51	42%	$372
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the…	2008	$185	$190	65	77%	$787
The Dark Knight	2008	$185	$190	82	94%	$1,022
Aggregated Total		$6,036		62	61%	$21,527

Source: Box Office Mojo (boxofficemojo.com), The Numbers (the-numbers.com), Metacritic (metacritic.com), Rotten Tomatoes (rottentomatoes.com).

1. The average critical rating (using Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes aggregated ratings) is a rather mediocre 62 and 61%, respectively, which indicates that, in general, mega-budget movies garner a lukewarm critical reception. There’s a lot more pink (signifying a bad rating) in the above chart than green (signifying a good rating).
2. However, it’s certain that a substantial portion of the positive critical response to these movies (what positive response there is) results from their technical achievement. How could it not? Every movie on this list – every one – is first and foremost a digital effects movie. When this group is considered as a whole, the aggregate ratings for the plotlines, characterizations, themes – the non-technical elements – must rate lower, perhaps much lower.
3. Hollywood financing can be opaque, and published budgets may significantly understate actual costs, but by any measure it seems that mega-budget movies are money makers [3]. Big money makers. Even if you add ten to twenty percent to the initial cost for marketing and other ancillary costs, the return on investment from box office receipts alone is more than 3-to-1.  Mega-budget effects movies may be mediocre, but that sells, especially in foreign markets where an ever-growing percentage of box office sales are realized. The world appetite for mega-budget American movies seems unquenchable.
4. As long as mega-budget effects movies make big profits, there’s no reason to expect the formulas to change. Spend huge money on impressive, extravagant special effects. Spend little money on a script. 
5. It doesn’t seem that mega-budget movies need a bankable star. Look at the above list, Avatar, Titanic (at the time), Harry Potter, Spider-Man, and many others lack a huge name. Today, effects are the star and a studio can be confident of financial success without a name to list above the title.

So can we draw any conclusions about the ICQH? Well, there are exceptions (Toy Story 3 is an excellent movie, for one) so in a strict sense it can’t be a law. Yet, there’s some real dreck in the above list, and even more mediocrity. I’ll fairly convert the ICQH to the ICQR – Inverse Cost and Quality Rule – with occasional exceptions. The discriminating movie fan would be wise to consider the ICQR before heading to the theater to watch the next mega-budget-effects movie.  

So What Does the ICQR Mean?
There are some mega-budget movies that garnered enthusiastic critical praise: Avatar, Titanic, Toy Story 3, Spider-Man 2, and The Dark Knight.

In ten or twenty years I’ll be willing to bet that few of these films will be watched with frequency. Perhaps they’ll be remembered for technical innovation (the way “T2” and Jurassic Park are remembered now), but as I noted above, it’s story and character that really matter, and that’s what keeps a movie (or novel, or play) alive and keeps people watching [4].  Technical flourish is great when it serves a story (e.g., Aliens, Blade Runner, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind), but not when the story serves it. Does anyone watch the big-budget disaster movies from the 1970s (e.g., The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure, Airport) now? I don’t think so. These were the mega-budget-effects movies of their day. In contrast, people are still captivated by The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, and Chinatown. In twenty years people will still laugh at Sideways, but will anyone sit through three hours of Avatar [5]?

---


NOTES:  

[1] Spielberg’s movie lacks the intelligence and depth of Michael Crichton’s fantastic novel. For instance, the film radically oversimplifies the science behind cloning, the ideas of Chaos Theory, and the broader complex arguments about the ethics behind evermore complex technology. Further, the movie’s characters are annoying (the children), boring (the paleontologist Grant), unrealistic (the billionaire Hammond), and clichéd (the lawyer Gennaro). The only bright spots are the performances of Jeff Goldblum as skeptical mathematician Ian Malcolm and Wayne Knight as the sharp-tongued duplicitous computer programmer Dennis Nedry. The dinosaurs look amazing, however.  

[2] For example: James Cameron with Titanic and Avatar, Steven Spielberg with Jurassic Park and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and George Lucas with all three of the wretched Star Wars prequels.  

[3] Even “failures” like the much maligned Waterworld, The Green Lantern, Terminator Salvation, and Superman Returns seem to have at least broken even.  

[4] Examples of movies in the mega-budget era that are worth repeated viewings (since 1995): (500) Days of Summer, Apollo 13, Casino, Children of Men, Contact, Election, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Fargo, Heat, L.A. Confidential, Lost in Translation, No Country for Old Men, Rob Roy, Saving Private Ryan, Se7en, Sideways, Sling Blade, and The 40-Year-Old Virgin.  

[5] Perhaps the two mega-budget-effects movies that most stick in my craw are James Cameron’s Titanic and Avatar. Both runaway hits, both praised upon their initial release, both technically masterful. I’ll happily concede that the recreation of the Titanic sinking was engrossing. The 3-D digital world of Pandora in Avatar looked as good as any wholly-created world has ever looked (especially in the theater). Cameron deserves all credit for these achievements. But these movies represent everything I hate about mega-budget effects movies. Why?

First Titanic. The movie’s characters and story are painfully thin; I especially despise the insipid dialogue (count how many times characters say other characters names, “Jack!”, “Rose!,” despite being within sight of one another). The only interesting aspect of the movie is the ship sinking. So ask yourself, wouldn’t a two hour documentary just showing the ship sinking as it was presented in the movie be more interesting (not to mention save time)? Here’s a short list of lousy character/plot elements:

• Insipid dialogue (see above);
• Overflowing melodrama – evil fiancée, theft, gun fire, love triangle, etc.;
• Lack of perspective – on revisiting the location of the sinking, the old lady version of Rose drops a priceless jewel into the deep as some sort of tribute for the vagabond (Jack) she met for a few days 80+ years earlier instead of using that jewel to support her FAMILY (husband, kids, grandkids) during the many decades that had passed, which of course included The Great Depression and two World Wars. (Are we the audience supposed to ignore this?);
• Bad acting – Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio are great actors, but even they couldn’t improve on flat characters and pathetic dialogue.

Now Avatar. Are all corporations greedy and irresponsible? Are all Americans – especially former military men – foolish and bloodthirsty? Are all Natives enlightened, healthy, and happy? Avatar insults the viewer, openly cheering for the defeat – and deaths – of humans (seemingly American, and male, and white). This is over-simple, tired, and strange. Here’s a list of lousy character/plot elements:

• Evil white men versus the noble savage (see above) – the parallels to the story of Pocahontas or even Dancing With the Wolves are distracting;
• One-dimensional plotting – men are greedy, men are bloodthirsty, men are unthinking, and only a few “enlightened characters” (i.e. non-white-non-males) act rationally. As if a multi-trillion dollar deep space investment was a plaything for adolescents;
• It openly cheers for the death of humans – mostly Americans (see above);
• The avatars don’t look real  – they look very good for digital creations but lack the physical nuance, especially facial expression that is so important for actors, fortunately they aren’t required by the script to have much depth.