The Curious Case of Fincher’s ‘Benjamin Button’

A script about the joy of life. A movie about the sadness of death. All parties weren’t on the same page here.

Speak for yourself.

I think that Fincher’s chilliness and technological experise tempered a film that could have been too gooey and saccharine.

But, you know, whatever.

It’ll never stop being a struggle for David Fincher, even if he keeps making movies as good as “Button” and “Zodiac.”

I don’t know why some people keep trying so hard to convince others that this film was a failure of some type.

Alright, it wasn’t the best film of the year. But, as they say, perfection isn’t the enemy of good.

At the end of the year the film ranked around 4th on average in the critics end-of-year lists. It secured 13 Oscar nominations, winning three. It was nominated for 11 BAFTA’s, winning three. Fincher won a couple of high-profile prestiguous directorial awards (London Film Critics, NBR; and coming in a strong second with New York Film Circle — he probably finished second in the voting last night).

The film earns an 8.3 rating on imdb, has a 70+% average at rotten tomatoes.

It’s well on its way to making $300+ million at the box office (will probably achieve that number next weekend).

I agree it wasn’t the best film of the year, but I think it was in the top five — thus deserving the nominations it got. It’s technical achievement will be remembered, in my opinion, and deserved all the awards it recieved.

I don’t understand why people are so invested in trying to convince others that this film failed.

It didn’t win. Oh well, neither did a lot of real good movies through the years.

Can’t we still celebrate the achievement that it was? Is that still allowed?

The one thing I absolutely hate about the rise of these film blogs and Oscar prediction sites over the past two or three years is this zero-sum mentality they incorporate regarding films.

It’s not enough for one film to win, another has to lose for some reason.

Award shows like the Oscars are supposed to be a celebration of films and filmmaking. It’s not a WWF style battle royal.

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I didn’t like it and that’s a personal opinion. If I then write any articles about “Ben Button,” be forewarned, as they will probably express my distaste for the film. Doesn’t mean I’m trying to make to think like me.

I, on the other hand, love “Meet Joe Black,” a film that is longer and arguably more “boring” to most people than Button was. So when these Fincher fanatics try to call me out stating some bullshit like, “guess you’re not smart enough for Button” or “guess there wasn’t enough explosions to keep your interest,” I do take offense.

Both movies have their own audience, I just happen to not be a part of Buttons.

Well, Baby Jesus, how I long for your absence of cynicism.

Well, let’s throw all the massive critical acclaim out the window, because we all know those awards institutions and the critic establishments are filled with glad-handling pussy-footers- doesn’t “Spider-Man” have something ridiculous like 80% on the Tomatometer? And can anyone think of a MAJOR award group that actually awarded the best movies of the year?

I’m coming from a place of respect and enjoyment regarding the movie. However, it was hard not to be disappointed in some of the film’s unavoidable shortcomings- the similariies to “Gump,” the simplicity of the lead character, Pitt’s ineffectual performance, each characters’ often jejune life lessons.

I also think that many of the obvious critiques have been more eloquently put than the raves about this film. Many critics ignored how moving it was, how it was an analysis of death and its effect on loved ones, on the unavoidable threat of aging without achievement. But they also noted that David Fincher, such a talented filmmaker who directed an instant classic with “Zodiac,” had taken a step back.

None of this has to do with studio reflections, in that the movie was so expensive (how does Fincher spend so much every time?) that, at best, the movie will break even with DVD sales. To them, with this Oscar snubbing and the weak receipts, it’s a bit of a failure. And it’s a little long to be a true catalog title- I doubt we’ll be renting this film in ten years for a new generation of Button-heads.

I do agree with the hyperbole of Oscar blogs and handicappers and such- so many of them discuss OTHER people’s opinions and everything is very end-of-the-world, but I do think “Button,” starring massive moviestar Brad Pitt, and STILL the highest grossing of the Best Picture nominees, can take it.

Yes Gabe, you’re right. We’ll make you the Emperor of what film is good and what film isn’t since no one else’s opinions matter.

Wonderful idea.

Jesus, this is exactly what I mean.

First, since when has a $300 million+ gross for an “art” film constituted “weak receipts?” Think about that. The film cost $150 million to make, not $500 million. My prediction is that it breaks even at the box office and DVD is all profit. Also, before you bring it up, i’m not buying that $135 million marketing budget. The average budget for marketing a summer blockbuster is only $40 to $60 million, why would this film be three times larger?

Think about it this way: a Presidential campaign budget between August (after the convention) and election day in November is $80 million total (by federal campaign laws). That pays for everything, including the carpet bombing ad campaigns that go on, internet campaign, advisors, polls, etc. There was no such carpet bombing that went on for months on end here. Besides, a lot of the money will ultimately be recouped through the studio’s marketing department. I can’t for the life of me see what they spent $135 million on. (This is exactly one of those things that are picked up and repeated, as you mentioned, without any kind of scrutiny being properly administered).

I say they spend $50 million tops, LA Times be damned.

Second, Not every film can win Best Picture, only one can. Does that mean that the other four films stunk though? Slumdog was better, but that doesn’t mean that Button was bad. Like I wrote, it averaged about 4th or so among critics end-of-year lists. Thus, its place among five nominated films for Best Picture was deserved and entirely appropriate. It just wasn’t good enough to win.

It got so many nominations because of the technical nods (which many Oscar-baity films don’t usually get), which it won three.

I really don’t see a problem here.

Well, first of all, Baby Jesus, I carefully delineated between what I think and what the public appears to feel about the movie. I’m in the minority- I think it was better than “Slumdog Millionaire”- a lot better. But, to me, the real Oscar honor is to be nominated, and there’s certain significance in being nominated for Best Picture, even if the Academy tends to often celebrate garbage- “Slumdog Millionaire,” again, comes to mind. I’m just a dick like that.

Regardless, your knowledge of the budget of “Benjamin Button” is questionable. Respectfully, I must draw the line between reporters who maybe have been around the set, talked with executives, and have a knowledge of movie budgets, versus you, anonymous internet movie conversationalist. I mean, no offense, but what evidence do you have that the ad budget on this was $50 million? You can’t just “throw out the ad budget” here, but for the sake of your argument, let’s do that.

According to the (again, not always reliable boxofficemojo.com) Button has done $243 worldwide, and with a few territories left, it could finish at $280-300. A studio will usually take in 55% of gross receipts, so $300 million (eliminating overseas partners) means a take of around $160 million or so (split across two companies that co-funded the film).

Throw in your ad budget, which you quite literally pulled out of thin air, and add that to the budget (theoretically $150 million, as it always was), and you’ve got expenditures in the area of $200 million. If you want to get technical, the AVERAGE ad budget for a film is between $60-80 million. And that counts movies dumped in spring releases, quiet romantic comedies and self-marketed kids’ flicks. I doubt “Button” was marketed at an “average” level.

That would mean you’d need to score $40 million more on the rental/purchase market just to break even. And surely the film will EVENTUALLY turn a profit, but neither studios, nor anyone else, will spend $200 million just to break even or to eke out a minor profit once the film hits disc.

The film is not a crowd-pleaser, and if a studio is spending AT LEAST $200 million, they are doing so because they see a massive awards windfall in addition to a solid box office gross. The film only received technical nods, matched up against the likes of “Wanted” and “Hellboy 2.” Coupled with the meager to nonexistent financial success (and I’m not discussing what I WANT the numbers to be, only what they realistically might be), I would say it was a serious under-performer from the studio’s standpoint.

None of this matters to me. Only the quality. And when the project was announced, I thought it would be Fincher’s best film. I still feel it’s strong in certain aspects, but it’s one of Fincher’s lesser works, sadly. Since we’re being “celebratory,” I guess you could say Fincher’s worst films are better than most filmmakers’ best films. So that’s not bad.

gabe, spend more time writing, less time commenting. that’s like the length of two posts.

1. Button has done $272 million+ worldwide as of Sunday and has done $14 million during the weekday for the past two weeks in a row. It’s averaging $30 million for the past three weekends in a row. It’s widely expected to break through $300 million by the end of next weekend.

They haven’t even opened the film in China or India yet. They also have to open the film in another 20 or so other (medium sized) foreign markets. The film is also doing very strong hold-over buisness (dropping on average between 20% to 33% week-to-week).

If lucky, the film may finish with $400 million in total box office. It’ll probably finish around $350 million.

2. The 55% figure is actually an “average.” Big studio films like Button, which have (and has had) strong opening weekends everywhere it opens, tend to do better since the studio retains far larger portions of its opening weekend grosses (closer to 85%, depending on what arrangment they have with their exhibitor). Button will probably keep around 57% to 58% of its total box office.

That means, when all is said and done, Button will probably make $200 to $228 million for its studio(s), after exhibitor fees are covered. The budget was $150 million, that leaves a $50 million to $78 million cushion for marketing/profitability.

3. The $50 million figure was an estimate on my part (one which I stand by), but it’s based on the fact that summer blockbuster films have media budgets of aprox $40 to $60 million. It also comes from the fact that I recognize that $135 million is simply an ASTRONOMICAL figure.

Don’t react. Just spend one moment to think about just how high that figure is. Think about what one can buy with $135 million. The reason I brought up the Presidential campaign numbers was just to use it as an illustration. A Presidential campaign is a major three-month media undertaking. It’s far more comprehensive than the marketing of a film. It also goes on for a longer period of time. Even that doesn’t cost $135 million.

So I guess i’m just using the common sense that God gave me. I don’t automatically believe something just because it appears in the LA Times.