Spring Break
The Oscars: it's all about the money
Corey Light
Issue date: 2/23/09 Section: Culture
After an entire month of Oscar season, you may be getting a little tired of all the highbrow film critic talk. But at the end of the day, you can sum up the entire process in one word - money.
Forget the directors, actors, editors, producers, composers, mixers, gaffers and costume designers that make a movie what it can be. And forget that there's a great idea out there just waiting to be transformed into cinematic gold. Money makes it all possible.
This year at the 81st Academy Awards, films have claimed their victory in all sorts of categories - best actor, best actress, best directing, and so on.
But what if all the nominees had played by the same rules?
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" reported a budget of $160 million. That's enough money to send 2,000 undergraduates to UMKC for full bachelor's degrees. They could even stay in the Oak Street Dorms.
On the flip side, "The Wrestler" had a reported budget of only $6 million - about 4 percent of Brad Pitt's super-movie.
What's the difference in quality? "Wrestler" scored 98 percent on www.rottentomatoes.com out of 189 journalist reviews. "Ben Button" scored 71 percent out of 202 reviews.
I'll take an A over a C- any day.
So what if all the nominees had the same budget? I suspect some would have been a little … different.
Let's take a look at how this year's biggest blockbusters would have done with a middle-of-the-road budget: an average value of the "Wrester" budget and the "Benjamin Button" budget - $83 million. That's a big step up for Mickey Rourke and Brad Pitt just got sliced in half.
First off, "The Dark Knight" ($185 million budget) would have had to use a black Honda Civic for the Batmobile - a minor drawback.
Additionally, they would have replaced Morgan Freeman with Kenan Thompson (formally of Kenan and Kel), Christian Bale with Michael Keaton (again), and Aaron Eckhart with … well they could probably keep Aaron Eckhart just to boost the poor man's ego.
Forget the directors, actors, editors, producers, composers, mixers, gaffers and costume designers that make a movie what it can be. And forget that there's a great idea out there just waiting to be transformed into cinematic gold. Money makes it all possible.
This year at the 81st Academy Awards, films have claimed their victory in all sorts of categories - best actor, best actress, best directing, and so on.
But what if all the nominees had played by the same rules?
"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" reported a budget of $160 million. That's enough money to send 2,000 undergraduates to UMKC for full bachelor's degrees. They could even stay in the Oak Street Dorms.
On the flip side, "The Wrestler" had a reported budget of only $6 million - about 4 percent of Brad Pitt's super-movie.
What's the difference in quality? "Wrestler" scored 98 percent on www.rottentomatoes.com out of 189 journalist reviews. "Ben Button" scored 71 percent out of 202 reviews.
I'll take an A over a C- any day.
So what if all the nominees had the same budget? I suspect some would have been a little … different.
Let's take a look at how this year's biggest blockbusters would have done with a middle-of-the-road budget: an average value of the "Wrester" budget and the "Benjamin Button" budget - $83 million. That's a big step up for Mickey Rourke and Brad Pitt just got sliced in half.
First off, "The Dark Knight" ($185 million budget) would have had to use a black Honda Civic for the Batmobile - a minor drawback.
Additionally, they would have replaced Morgan Freeman with Kenan Thompson (formally of Kenan and Kel), Christian Bale with Michael Keaton (again), and Aaron Eckhart with … well they could probably keep Aaron Eckhart just to boost the poor man's ego.
Be the first to comment on this story