Whatever Happened to the Western Movie Genre?

[Rathdown]

The expense of a Western = horse charges, are nothing compared to sci-fi post production CGI expenses. So I discount that view.

You have made the fatal error of assuming that a western wouldn't make use of CGI. But setting aside the use of CGI for a moment it is a simple fact that costume pictures cost more to produce than ordinary pictures. TRUE GRIT cost $38m to make. If it had been set in modern day America -- using the same cast and crew -- the picture probably could have been brought in for something around $25-$30m. It's this 20%+ increase in manufactured cost that makes a western less attractive to studio bosses.

 

[Atomic Age]

You have made the fatal error of assuming that a western wouldn't make use of CGI. But setting aside the use of CGI for a moment it is a simple fact that costume pictures cost more to produce than ordinary pictures. TRUE GRIT cost $38m to make. If it had been set in modern day America -- using the same cast and crew -- the picture probably could have been brought in for something around $25-$30m. It's this 20%+ increase in manufactured cost that makes a western less attractive to studio bosses.

This is not entirely true. Yes if they buy the costumes off the rack, modern clothes will cost less. However at the level of a film like True Grit, even if it were set in modern day, the costumes would custom made for each actor. Making a costume from scratch really costs no more if it is a period picture or a modern film. Add to that the typical western shoots in open spaces. Shooting on location in a national park is often MUCH less expensive than shooting in an urban environment. Of course if you are going to build a whole town from scratch, as they did on Silverado, that will crank the budget up, but very few films have done that in recent years. There is really no need to as there are many very good standing western towns around the west and southwest that are suitable for shooting.

As for CGI, almost every film made today makes use of CGI if its a big action film, or a romantic comedy. Even on a big sci-fi epic, the effects budget is rarely more than about 1/4 of the total shooting budget. The first fatal error is assuming that CGI is what makes films expensive. Super 8 was a big CGI extravaganza, that cost $50 million to make. A tiny budget for a big summer film. What really costs are actors salaries which is where MOST of the budget goes. The second error is not realizing that almost every film you see has some CGI manipulation, and you never know its there.

Doug

 

[derrickyoung]

When we grew up, we played "army", "cops & robbers", 'cowboys & indians".... my son never did.
They played laser tag, paintball, airsoft, & first person shooters....
I had GI Joe & Johnny West & he had Xmen, Power Rangers, Spiderman, Batman...

I think this nails it.

The imagination of our kids is limited to what is fed to them via screen. Computers, Game Consoles have replaced the stick that was somewhat rifle shaped that we would play Cowboys with for hours.

 

[Worf]

First of all, I don't think that people have become adverse to what you have characterized as "frontier justice"-- however that may be defined. Basically there are two kinds of people in the world, Good People and Bad People, and by and large the good people want to get rid of the bad as quickly and as efficiently as possible. This, it would seem, is the core of "frontier justice" and it has, at least in my opinion, absolutely nothing to do with why fewer western films are produced now, than say fifty years ago.

Hollywood doesn't make westerns because it doesn't want to. Questions of "political correctness" aside, westerns aren't made for two pretty good reasons:

(1) It costs more to rent a horse for a day than a car (and far more actors can drive than can ride a horse);
&
(2) Very few writers today can turn out a credible western (the same applies, by the way, to Hollywood musicals, or screwball comedies).

So, it's really down to cost and a lack of good scripts.

As to the other factors involved, Señor Marías, has them pretty much nailed to the wall.

I didn't make the claim of Political Correctness leading to the demise of Westerns the article cited in the OP did, I just cited it.

Worf

 

[Pompidou]

In order for this linked blog article to be accurate, you have to agree that none of the modern westerns are good movies, and I can't agree. I think 3:10 and True Grit are good westerns. I could write an article stating romantic comedies as a genre are dead, because I didn't like pretty much any of them, but it'd hardly be a fair or accurate conclusion. It's a common connection to be made, however. Westerns are alive and well, just not the kind of westerns the blogger likes. Westerns make a good return on the investment and producers will still jump on any good script they can get. I think High Noon would be fit for a modern remake.

 

[Rathdown]

I didn't make the claim of Political Correctness leading to the demise of Westerns the article cited in the OP did, I just cited it.

Worf

Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't referring to you, but rather others who had raised the PC issue. I have amended my posting to clarify this for future readers.

 

[Undertow]

...a setting...speaks as loud as any actor in the film; and a good director and a good cinematographer will know how to make that setting speak to the audience...

YES! I think this is so important to communicate in a Western. I'm sure there can be other perspectives and methods (such as a very close-quartered Western Boom town, etc.) but a Western ought to focus at some point on the expansive, seemingly-empty "West". That can be acheived in any film of any era.

In order for this linked blog article to be accurate, you have to agree that none of the modern westerns are good movies, and I can't agree. I think 3:10 and True Grit are good westerns. I could write an article stating romantic comedies as a genre are dead, because I didn't like pretty much any of them, but it'd hardly be a fair or accurate conclusion...

Agreed. I think that's the main fault of this article, really.
***************

As my lady and I discussed this thread topic last night, we came to the conclusion that Westerns, along with any film genre, have a much greater potential now than ever to be spectacular. Since their inception, films have been difficult and expensive to produce; thus one had to cater to production studios who, in turn, were interested in no more than ticket sales. Today, an independent filmmaker can hobble together a cast and crew, and shoot some really amazing stuff if they so choose. It's far easier now than it ever was.

 

[Rathdown]

This is not entirely true. Yes if they buy the costumes off the rack, modern clothes will cost less. However at the level of a film like True Grit, even if it were set in modern day, the costumes would custom made for each actor. Making a costume from scratch really costs no more if it is a period picture or a modern film. Add to that the typical western shoots in open spaces. Shooting on location in a national park is often MUCH less expensive than shooting in an urban environment. Of course if you are going to build a whole town from scratch, as they did on Silverado, that will crank the budget up, but very few films have done that in recent years. There is really no need to as there are many very good standing western towns around the west and southwest that are suitable for shooting.

Doug, as you know there's more to a period picture than just costumes and locations, which is why they cost more to produce. Thom Eberhardt (a pal and the writer/director of NIGHT OF THE COMET) shot NAKED FEAR with Joe Montegna in New Mexico about three years ago for just on $300k -- yup, that's no typo; the picture cost just on three hundred thousand dollars. Now if that same script was set in the old west (rather than the present day) Thom, who is a genius when it comes to small budget films, would be hard pressed to make the picture for less than $500k. Same story, both shot in the wide open spaces, the only difference is that instead of happening in 2008 it would take place in 1888. Why the increase in cost? Tons of reasons, everything from props to insurance and all the stuff in between. Here's one example. My cost to rent cars from Hertz/Avis etc. is about $35 per day. I park them on the set, move them about when needed, and leave them parked on the lot overnight. Horses cost $50 per day, plus feed and water, plus a wrangler at $300 per 10 hour day, plus the transport to and from the set. So, if I need 10 cars I'm spending about $350-400 per day; ten horses cost me $500, plus the wranglers (usually 1 wrangler per four horses) plus feed, water, and a bunch of other stuff, like saddles at $25 per day. It also costs a whole lot less to get a permit to shoot on city streets than it does to hire a western town...

The bottom line is that period films just cost more to produce, with or without effects.

 

[Rathdown]

As my lady and I discussed this thread topic last night, we came to the conclusion that Westerns, along with any film genre, have a much greater potential now than ever to be spectacular.

I'd agree, especially since I sold a western to a Canadian production company in March of last year.

Since their inception, films have been difficult and expensive to produce; thus one had to cater to production studios who, in turn, were interested in no more than ticket sales. Today, an independent filmmaker can hobble together a cast and crew, and shoot some really amazing stuff if they so choose. It's far easier now than it ever was.

Well, even the independent producer still has to focus on earning back the cost of the picture and returning a profit to the folks who put up the money to make the picture in the first place.

As far as it now being easier to make a picture... well, pictures are still difficult animals to tame-- the latest digital cameras may eliminate a few of the problems associated with traditional film, but their general use really doesn't make it easier than it ever was to make a movie.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The biggest obstacle isn't production. It's distribution. And for all the talk of how "digital is going to open the gates to a world of new independent cinema, blah blah blah," the fact is the Major Studios, thru the way they control financing of theatre digitization, are going to dominate digital distribution exactly the same way they've dominated the distribution of 35mm film. What this means is that any picture, whatever the genre, is going to still be at the mercy of the distribution companies -- if they don't pick you up, your picture isn't going to be seen by any sort of decent-sized audience. In the past a determined independent without a distributor could drive around the country with a 35mm print in the trunk of his car and show his film in all sorts of indie houses -- but digitization is going to put a stop to that. Only films the majors want shown will be shown on digital-cinema systems.

The only alternative is direct-to-video, and the majors even control that form of distribution. And a big sprawling western would lose much of its impact if it's seen only on home screens.

 

[Richard Warren]

Hippies and beatniks (Jack Nicholson, Marlon Brando, Peter Fonda, Warren Oates., Warren Beatty) got hold of them and killed them. McCabe and Mrs. Miller was enough to do the job by itself. After that the genre just couldn't be subverted any more, and the folks in Hollywood sure weren't going to play it straight. (No pun intended on the homoerotic element in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.) The children of the sixties destroyed the western and moved on to (destroying) bigger things.

 

[frussell]

Sometimes westerns are disguised as Sci-Fi, like the aforementioned Star Wars. Last night I watched "Priest," which looked like a vampire v.s. humans movie. What it really was: a mishmash of samurai and most of the plot of "The Searchers." The title character was even thinking about killing his female relative when they rescued her if she had been "infected," much like John Wayne's character thought about killing Natalie Wood if she had been passed around by too many "bucks." That old saying about "nothing new under the sun" remains true, there are many Western-style plots and themes being recycled into other genres, just like the samurai/spaghetti westerns in the 60s and 70s. Frank

 

[Atomic Age]

Doug, as you know there's more to a period picture than just costumes and locations, which is why they cost more to produce. Thom Eberhardt (a pal and the writer/director of NIGHT OF THE COMET) shot NAKED FEAR with Joe Montegna in New Mexico about three years ago for just on $300k -- yup, that's no typo; the picture cost just on three hundred thousand dollars. Now if that same script was set in the old west (rather than the present day) Thom, who is a genius when it comes to small budget films, would be hard pressed to make the picture for less than $500k. Same story, both shot in the wide open spaces, the only difference is that instead of happening in 2008 it would take place in 1888. Why the increase in cost? Tons of reasons, everything from props to insurance and all the stuff in between. Here's one example. My cost to rent cars from Hertz/Avis etc. is about $35 per day. I park them on the set, move them about when needed, and leave them parked on the lot overnight. Horses cost $50 per day, plus feed and water, plus a wrangler at $300 per 10 hour day, plus the transport to and from the set. So, if I need 10 cars I'm spending about $350-400 per day; ten horses cost me $500, plus the wranglers (usually 1 wrangler per four horses) plus feed, water, and a bunch of other stuff, like saddles at $25 per day. It also costs a whole lot less to get a permit to shoot on city streets than it does to hire a western town...

The bottom line is that period films just cost more to produce, with or without effects.

I have a friend who is producing a western web series and doing it for about $15,000. Any movie can be made on any budget, its just a matter of how you do it. As Roger Corman once said, "Give me two Centurions, and a bush, and I'll give you a Roman Epic."

The point isn't that period films cost more, they might or they might not. Of course this depends. Does your period film have Johnny Depp who costs about $25 million per picture, or does it have a no name lead who is working for scale and making $5000 for the whole picture?

The point is at the level of a Hollywood film, lets say $50 million or more, the cost of making a western is not significantly more than any other kind of film to explain why they aren't being made as often today as they were in say the 1950's. And they are going to cost MUCH less than your average sci-fi epic or super hero movie.

Westerns aren't made very often today, because they just aren't going to be making $800 million to a billion dollars, and Hollywood just loves to swing for the fences.

By the way Night of the Comet is one of my favorite movies.

Doug

 

[Rathdown]

I have a friend who is producing a western web series and doing it for about $15,000. Any movie can be made on any budget, its just a matter of how you do it. As Roger Corman once said, "Give me two Centurions, and a bush, and I'll give you a Roman Epic."

The point isn't that period films cost more, they might or they might not. Of course this depends. Does your period film have Johnny Depp who costs about $25 million per picture, or does it have a no name lead who is working for scale and making $5000 for the whole picture?

Sure it depends. It depends on if I need to rent two sets of Roman centurion armor, or do I need to rent two tee-shirts and two pair of board shorts? I just did a street scene where I needed half a dozen cars, some parked and some driving buy. It was a scheduled 3-day shoot and for rain cover I ended up renting a total of 10 cars for five days. Cost per car was $35 per day plus delivery plus $2.10 per mile if they were driven. Not counting delivery I ended up spending a little over $1900 to rent the cars. Now the cost to rent a horse is $50 a day, and if tied to hitching post with a prop saddle on its back it goes up to $60. If the horse is ridden it adds another $25 per day. Additionally I've gotta pay for food and water, a couple of wranglers, and some dumb SOB from the Humane Society who is there to make sure we don't mistreat the horses. That adds up to quite a bit more than renting 10 cars... so, in general terms, it does cost more to make a period movie than something set in the present day. Why? Because it costs money to "roll back the clock", plain and simple.

The point is at the level of a Hollywood film, lets say $50 million or more, the cost of making a western is not significantly more than any other kind of film to explain why they aren't being made as often today as they were in say the 1950's. And they are going to cost MUCH less than your average sci-fi epic or super hero movie.

Everything costs much less that your average sci-fi epic or super hero movie. That's not the point. The point is that given a choice between two scripts of equal merit, the studio will inevitably choose to produce the script that will cost the least, thus maximizing the return on their investment, or at least mitigating the amount of their loss if the picture "under performs" at the box office. Oh, and of the $50m budget, approximately half of that ($25m) is set aside for marketing and advertising; the actual cost to make the film (set up, pre-production, production, and post-production) is about $25m.

Westerns aren't made very often today, because they just aren't going to be making $800 million to a billion dollars, and Hollywood just loves to swing for the fences.

Hollywood loves swinging for the fences because somebody else is paying for the bat and ball. Fox's total exposure in AVATAR was about 35% of the cost of the film, less marketing and advertising expenses. And since Fox had a first charge against the earnings of the picture (typically this is about 35% of the box office gross) their potential for loss was just about nil. Why? Because hedge funds love investing in the movies. The average return on a motion picture investment for a hedge fund is about 12-15% and can be as high as 23%-- and that sure beats investing in mortgages.

By the way Night of the Comet is one of my favorite movies.

One of mine, too.

Scott

PS: do you think anybody besides you and me understands this stuff?

 

[Atomic Age]

Sure it depends. It depends on if I need to rent two sets of Roman centurion armor, or do I need to rent two tee-shirts and two pair of board shorts? I just did a street scene where I needed half a dozen cars, some parked and some driving buy. It was a scheduled 3-day shoot and for rain cover I ended up renting a total of 10 cars for five days. Cost per car was $35 per day plus delivery plus $2.10 per mile if they were driven. Not counting delivery I ended up spending a little over $1900 to rent the cars. Now the cost to rent a horse is $50 a day, and if tied to hitching post with a prop saddle on its back it goes up to $60. If the horse is ridden it adds another $25 per day. Additionally I've gotta pay for food and water, a couple of wranglers, and some dumb SOB from the Humane Society who is there to make sure we don't mistreat the horses. That adds up to quite a bit more than renting 10 cars... so, in general terms, it does cost more to make a period movie than something set in the present day. Why? Because it costs money to "roll back the clock", plain and simple.

That is unless you can convince the owners of classic cars to show up for a free meal and the chance to have their car in a movie. If you are in LA, the likelihood is not very great, in other cities people are more willing to come out for the "fun" of being on a movie set. One of the reasons I'm not working in LA anymore. Also here in Arizona, there are plenty of people willing to come out in full western attire to be extras. They often have their own animals and are more than happy to bring them to the set, again for the fun of being in a movie.

Everything costs much less that your average sci-fi epic or super hero movie. That's not the point. The point is that given a choice between two scripts of equal merit, the studio will inevitably choose to produce the script that will cost the least, thus maximizing the return on their investment, or at least mitigating the amount of their loss if the picture "under performs" at the box office. Oh, and of the $50m budget, approximately half of that ($25m) is set aside for marketing and advertising; the actual cost to make the film (set up, pre-production, production, and post-production) is about $25m.

My experience working at the studios was that the script had very little to do with the budget. The budget was directly effected by who they could cast in the movie. I was working in a producer's office, and they were shopping a script around. It was a fairly modest action concept. They got a studio interested, as long as they could keep the budget under $25 million. (this was the mid 90's) As soon as Keanu Reeves expressed interest in the film (this was right after Speed came out) the studio was willing to go up to $60 million.

PS: do you think anybody besides you and me understands this stuff?

I'm not sure I totally understand it! LOL

Doug

 

[J.W.]

I believe in cycles, so sooner or later, the interest in the Western will be renewed and it will resurface again.
Sort of like 80's clothing.