Abrams says modern movie budgets 'preposterous and embarrassing'

Contributed by
Dec 17, 2012

As the man leading the charge into so many big-budget blockbusters these days, you'd think filmmaker J.J. Abrams was a fan of all those monster budgets. Turns out he absolutely hates that movies have gotten so darn expensive.

Speaking to the Los Angeles Times, Abrams opened up about the business side of moviemaking, and said he kinda misses the days when $100 million was considered the peak for a tentpole flick:

"It is preposterous and embarrassing that movies cost what they do. Certainly on Star Trek and the sequel and on Mission: Impossible three and four, we had massive budget issues always. Yet we always get it figured out before production starts and realize that the money you don't get forces you to rethink something and challenges you to figure it out in a new way.

I am as interested in and obsessed with what can be done in the feature world for a price as anyone at any studio. I feel like it is incumbent upon filmmakers today to treat it like their own money."

Abrams has been on both sides of the money, with smaller films like Cloverfield ($25 million), and cash cows like the upcoming Star Trek 2 ($185 million) on his resume. Heck, his pilot for Lost was one of the biggest TV projects ever, clocking in at $13 million.

So if anyone knows how both sides live, it'd be Abrams. It's nice to hear someone at his level actually comment on the fact that budgets are getting crazy these days. Here's hoping he has some luck bringing down those astronomical spending numbers, and gets more focus on the movies themselves, as opposed to how much they cost.

What do you think? Is there any reason a movie like The Dark Knight Rises should cost $250 million?

(Via LA Times)