Hollywood's Budget Bubble: Are Big Bucks Buying Bad Movies?

Is this empty Dolby Cinema a sign that Hollywood's big-budget spectacles are losing their appeal?

Jeff Rauseo has a really good dive into Hollywood’s budget problem over on his Substack. I highly recommend giving it a read.

This section jumped out to me:

For comparison, Red One’s $250 million budget was the same as A24 spent on their entire slate of films in 2024. A24 released 16 movies in 2024, including notable films like Civil War, The Brutalist, Babygirl, Love Lies Bleeding, Sing Sing, I Saw The TV Glow, Maxxxine, and Heretic—all of which I would rather watch. They were better reviewed, they generated far more genuine enthusiasm from audiences, and although they weren’t all smash hits, they probably had a much higher return on investment, or at least a chance to break even.

Some of my favorite movies are either Independent or what would be considered low budget. I think there’s something about working within the confines of a tight budget that sparks creativity. You can’t solve the problem by throwing money at it, so how are you going to do it?

When something breaks in my house. I ask myself two questions. 1. Do I have the money to fix this? 2. Do I have the skills to fix this? If the answer to 1 is No, and if I don’t have the skills, I need to figure it out. I replaced the toilet in my house last year with this same equation. I’m guessing filmmaking is a similar series of questions that need to be answered.

For so many big-budget movies, they’re banking that the spectacle is what gets seats in theaters. I’m sure Red One figured that Dwyane ‘The Rock’ Johnson and Chris Evans in a Christmas movie would be enough to drive people to the theater. But I have to wonder how many people saw Amazon and figured they’d wait. That was part of my calculus. We had a busy holiday season and few chances to go out. My wife chose Wicked and I opted for Gladiator II when we chose to go to the theater. I knew Red One would be on Amazon Prime before long and the trailer wasn’t enough to convince me it needed to be a theater movie.

I’ve never seen budget as part of the marketing for a movie. Red One didn’t advertise a $250 million budget, but for those of us who pay attention, it is part of the discussion. There’s an imaginary line, for me, that a movie crosses into ridiculous territory and it’s around $200 million. Rauseo mentions the budget for the Lord of the Rings movies, adjusted for current dollars, at around $200 millions. Money well spent. It deserved that. But when I see $250 million, it makes me wonder if they’re spending money to fix problems.

Ultimately, the question isn't whether a film has a big budget, but whether that budget is being used effectively.

When I see a $250 million price tag, it doesn't inspire excitement; it raises questions. Are they investing in a compelling story, or are they simply throwing money at problems that should have been addressed in the script or during pre-production? Perhaps Hollywood should take a cue from indie filmmakers and homeowners alike: sometimes, the most creative solutions come from working within limitations.