"Mickey 17" and the Problem of Giant Budgets

South Korean auteur Bong Joon-ho is a brilliant filmmaker, and I've at least liked all of his movies that I've seen, so I was really curious about his new sci-fi comedy Mickey 17. After finally seeing it, I'm happy to report that it's a good movie. I wouldn't call it a masterpiece by any stretch, but it's a highly original film with a lot of laughs and big ideas, and you can tell it's made by someone with a real love for the craft. That's all good news, which makes it very sad that the movie is likely headed for a significant financial loss.

Mickey (Robert Pattinson) after a particularly nasty fall.

As of March 10, Mickey 17 has grossed a worldwide total of $54.8 million. That would be a great haul if it had the budget of Bong's Best Picture-winning Parasite, but it comes attached with a hefty $118 million price tag, which excludes marketing costs. A decent rule of thumb is that a movie needs to make at least 2.5 times its budget in order to break even, and if that number is accurate in Mickey 17's case, it likely needs to make roughly $300 million to be in the black.

(Ron Howard narrator voice) It's not going to make $300 million.

That's very sad indeed, but beyond being a disappointing turn of events for one movie, it's yet another example of Hollywood's rampant overspending problem.

Before you ask any questions about this alleged "overspending", go to wikipedia and search for "list of most expensive films". On second thought, I'll give you the link right here. Now go down the list, multiply some of those budgets by 2.5, and check the films' worldwide box office. Sure, you'll get plenty of hits, but there are more than a few on that list that are clear money losers, some of which were outright bombs. Now, if you've seen the movies in question, ask yourself, and I mean...really ask yourself: can I see the money onscreen, and was it necessary to spend that much?

A great example of how overspending can hurt a movie is 2023's Fast X. It's understandable that a Fast & Furious movie, which you can be sure will be filled to the brim with explosive stunts, expensive cars, and big stars, will have a huge budget, but do they need $378.8 million? Especially when the one where they went to space cost at least $150 million less than that? Well, when you shoot in some of the most expensive cities in the world and insist on spending over $100 million on the cast alone, you get the fourth most expensive movie of all time coming in at a net-loss.

There are certainly some productions that at least arguably call for budgets in excess of $200 million. When the MCU was firing on all cylinders with multiple billion-dollar entries in just a few years, it made sense to give Kevin Feige truly eye-watering amounts of cash for Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame, because at that rate of success you were hardly even gambling. Christopher Nolan and James Cameron are some directors I'd feel comfortable giving that kind of money to, because apparently they're superheroes whose powers include transmutation. But it's a very rare event in which that level of spending is justified, especially when there's no proof that a given project has the potential to turn a profit at such a high price point.

Now, someone might be reading this and thinking "but Pierce, some movies require high budgets in order to fulfill their artistic ambitions!" I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment, but again, think about a particularly expensive movie you've seen recently, and ask yourself if they could've pulled off what they're trying to accomplish at a lower budget. Let's compare Mickey 17 to Bong Joon-ho's previous sci-fi film Snowpiercer. Both are set in a dystopian future, tell stories about revolutions against corrupt, tyrannical governments, and have high production values. A key difference? While Mickey 17's budget came in at $121 million, Snowpiercer's was only $40 million, and it's not like you can tell. Both movies look fantastic, and the latter has lots of action that the former mostly lacks. If Mickey 17 had a production budget closer to Snowpiercer's, I'm sure Bong could've told the same story (with a few tweaks, of course) and the movie would've stood a much greater chance of breaking even.

And modestly budgeted action, sci-fi, and fantasy films are not at all rare. Plenty of them spend reasonably and efficiently without compromising on quality, which just makes Hollywood overspending look ridiculously unnecessary.

The problem is arguably even worse when the overspending occurs on a movie that's decidedly not an effects-laden spectacle. Just six months ago, Joker: Folie à Deux was the talk of the town in the worst away, rejected by both critics and audiences and only grossing a bit over $200 million worldwide after the first one joined the billion-dollar-club. But it wouldn't have been so bad if it had a budget comparable to that first movie, instead of one as great as...$200 million! But lest one assume this is only a problem for franchise properties, a historical comedy like 2022's Amsterdam can get greenlit for $80 million, even with niche subject matter (loosely based on an oft-forgotten conspiracy to overthrow FDR), and then lose the studio over $100 million. Why did it cost so much? Take a look at the all-star cast, many of whom probably commanded huge salaries.

That right there is one of the biggest contributors to Hollywood profligacy and lots of lost potential profits. The vast majority of actors are working stiffs doing their best to live comfortable lives, but the biggest stars can get paychecks that would make even one-percenters' heads explode. If you're a producer on a buddy comedy and you want the Rock and Chris Evans as your leading men, congratulations! You've already committed to spending tens of millions on a grand total of two people, and made it that much harder for your film to be profitable right out of the gate.

To be clear, I don't blame the stars for taking the money. From what I hear, it's usually their agents who take the lead on aggressively advocated for their clients' "interests". They demand not only the very highest salary they can possibly get, they want their sought-after clients to be put up in the most expensive hotels, get flown to location shoots on first-class flights, and have all manner of perks in their trailer, and all of these expenses add up. And this frivolous spending matters. If a movie can't make money because it costs too much, studios won't roll the dice on as many original ideas. Fewer movies will be made. The costs you, the consumer, in the form of higher ticket and concession prices. I really believe that studios should tell agents to shove it more often. No actor is irreplaceable, and there are plenty of immensely talented ones who'd jump at the chance to take a good role at a reasonable cost.

Anyway, just wanted to give some thoughts on a topic that constantly nags at me, especially when a movie that deserves a lot of attention gets short shrift. Go check out Mickey 17, and stay tuned for more posts.