@miaferrari958
RDJ was already a pretty big name by the time they hired him for Iron Man, having been the main character or the lead romantic character in several movies and TV shows in the 90's. He was uninsurable because of his trouble with the law and his addictions. That's the chance the studio took with him, not because he was "a no name actor"
@martins.muleya5742
10:25 I don't know what you're on but Keanu Reeves was already a mega star before John Wick. His career was just kinda hitting a few bumps.
@jonnsdotter1928
Just going to point out, the huge star fees include the time the actor will be spending on the publicity trail. All the talk shows, puppy interviews, nugget eating, days in random hotel rooms in each of the major cities, answering the same questions every 10 minutes for 3 days... that's still working on the movie. The bigger the name, the more the publicity will want to make use of them.
@videohousejsq
The answer is simple: Make good movies. Tell a GOOD story. That’s what we want. Big name stars don’t matter as much, neither does rushed CGI. A good story will always matter.
@npc042
Just a small note on the use of CGI and practical effects, because too many people think “CGI bad, practical good”. Hollywood has an obsession with hiding their CGI, they’re practically allergic to it. It has such a negative stigma that studios will ironically use CGI to hide green screens in behind-the-scenes footage while marketing movies like Barbie. Movies like Top Gun: Maverick were praised for their use of practical effects, but 90% of the planes in that film are, in fact, CGI. With audiences becoming more aware of how expensive CGI is, and the negative stigma generally around its over-use, you can easily see why the studios would want to hide it. But this is creating another issue, in that it contributes to the under-appreciation of special effects artists, and the crunch they experience. I bring this up because of the conclusion around the 11:00 mark, praising films like Oppenheimer for using “mostly practical effects”. This is a misleading statement, given the sheer abundance of “invisible VFX” shots present in the movie. In fact, according to an article from 2023, Nolan neglected to credit over 80% of the VFX crew that worked on his film. This is particularly concerning when he marketed the film as having minimal CGI, similarly to Tom Cruise with Top Gun: Maverick. All that said, we need to be very careful how we talk about CGI/VFX work as an audience and especially as film reviewers. The general audience still doesn’t fully understand the ins and outs of visual effects. And the ballooning of film budgets is, in-part, the result of this misunderstanding. Or rather, the result of taking it for granted. Edit: And I don’t mean to slam this video. Overall it was otherwise excellent and on-point. Keep up the good work!
@inyn_k
I agree to most of the points except the marketing points. We dont need movie studios baiting people for hundreds of movies that come out every year. Conventional marketing can work too a movie is done correctly.
@thehalobrony9050
11:20 No. People can not tell CGI from practical effects, they can only tell the difference when the effects are incomplete, or does not suspend onces disbelife.
@Wildwest89
Laundering money. Avoiding taxes by claiming losses. There’s lots of reasons.
@cutiepie338
Your Keanu Reeves example is kinda funny, because he still is the highest paid actor of all time, having earned a whopping $ 156,000,000 for the two (pretty terrible) Matrix sequels.
@JakeHGuy
Keanu and Downey were not no name actors when the got those roles hahaha
@IamPebbly
Sorry, but your arguments sound naive. You're oversimplifying the problem, and the solutions you're suggesting are banal and simply can't work within the industry's constraints. However, I often encounter similar misconceptions among audiences, so I'll take the liberty of explaining in detail what exactly is wrong. This will be a long read, but I hope it will help you see the bigger picture.
@pierrex3226
Paying 50m for the rock to act in red one sounds like some money laundering operation. I mean really...
@Whiterabbitdigital
10:25 Keanu Reeves was already well known before John wick… ever heard of the Matrix? 🙄
@reptongeek
What you said about reshoots is absolutely true. We need to get it right first time. You might still need some extra shooting to cover continuity bumps but that should only be 2 or 3 days. If it needs to be a month or even longer that's a fundamental problem with your movie that should have been fixed from the off
@jadenalvarado4912
One thing I also propose is focus more on in house production. Thats why george lucas kept budgets for the prequels low cause he paid salaries and minor expenses towards distribution and outside sources like stunts. If you can really control all aspetcs of production you can save more than half.
@baker2880
Keanu Reeves and Robert D Jr were definatly not no name actors before they got the films mentioned in this vid.
@TwistVisuals
I think some films like Irishman don't need to make back its money to be considered a great film. It was made as an artistic film made by an auteur. All the budget being spent on the CG, even though it wasn't the best, still contributed to the advancement of technology. Plus, the fact that such a film exists in this blockbuster oriented world is itself a statement.
@JeditheScribe
You lost me when you said “Godzilla vs. Kong” had bad CGI. It did not have bad CGI, it has some of the best CGI I’ve seen in a modern blockbuster. You’re wack 😒.
@GerryRufman1
I agree with the point you make. But this is easier to tell on films in retrospect then to point ahead. Also practical filmmaking vs. CGI is not always a solution vs. another. And in most cases VFX work is underpaid.
@Cert116