1 of 6

Write now Article Tools

Nobody makes a movie to lose money and nobody ever has. Cinema is, above all, a commercial industry whose sole aim is to get audiences into theatres, seeing the film, buying the merchandise and the video game tie in and the DVD and everything that goes with it.

Many people decry the modern trend for sequels and remakes, but forget that this is by no way a new thing. Cecil B DeMille remade his own BEN HUR back in 1959. Three earlier, Alfred Hitchcock did it with THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH , remaking his 1934 version. Silent movies were routinely remade when sound arrived. Black and white movies were remade into colour ones when it was possible. By 1967 there had been 4 versions of the PERILS OF PAULINE (1914, 34, 47 and 67). And what were the serials that ran before main movies other than cynical attempts to make the audience come back week after week?

But what about the tiresome matter of sequels? How many of this year's films had a number after them (real or implied)? Bourne, Harry Potter, Spider-Man? They didn't used to keep remaking the same film and calling it a franchise in the old days did they? Absolutely they did. How many Sherlock Holmes films were made with Basil Rathbone in the lead? How many times did Andy Hardy put on a show? How many cases did THE THIN MAN drink his way through? How many times did Errol Flynn swash a buckle and can you tell the difference today?

And what about the classic movies that we all recall, the so-called 'prestige pictures' of yesteryear that we don't get anymore? Well they were crammed full of the biggest stars that could be found in order to bring the audiences in even if they were aimed at winning awards. Why are awards important? Because they allowed the picture to be re-released then or raise the revenue brought in by the DVD release now. was GONE WITH THE WIND's cast full of unknowns, put through their paces by an unknown director and funded by public subscription? Not likely.

Of course, a great many more films were made in the years of the the studio systems (it's no surprise that the studios were known as dream 'factories') and so there were a greater number (though not necessarily proportion) of films that had new ideas or original stories and the cost of making those films was lower in relation to today's movies. If DVD and video had existed back then how much of the output would have still got to the big screen?

Every year there are still movies with interesting plots, characters, ideas and agendas that slip under the wire and make an impact. These are usually independent films made on small budgets that come good and take a lot of money. Think of SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE, LOST IN TRANSLATION, THE ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, THE TRUMAN SHOW, SIDEWAYS, THE FOUNTAIN - none of them something that you would bet your shirt on, but someone did because they all cost money and were all made to make money. Their budgets were smaller so they had to make less money to turn a profit and that allowed them to take more risks with the content, but the final aim was the same.

Is money the only consideration in making a film? Nobody sets out to make a bad film, but bad films that make money will always find it easier to be made than great movies that nobody goes to see.

Learn more about this author, Darren Humphries.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Reflections: Is making a movie just about bringing in money?
We want to hear your view. Write now!