“The Creator”

The forthcoming “The Creator,” due to hit theaters in September, *looks* awesome. Long have I and many others bitched that Hollywood seems incapable of doing something that’s not a sequel, prequel, reboot, remake or based on an existing IP of some kind. But here’s one that seems to be entirely original, and it *looks* fantastic… on a budget of a relatively paltry $86 million. Now, we’ve been stung before… for example, “Elysium” looked, early on, like it’d be something fantastic but it turned into meh. “Interstellar” similarly had mountains of potential, much of it squandered by being both depressing and gibberishy.

If “The Creator” is actually good, I hope it does really well. Unfortunately, garbage often does fantastic business, and good stuff gets left behind.

3 responses to ““The Creator””

  1. Scott M. Avatar
    Scott M.

    I love that nowadays $86 million is considered a ‘modest’ budget.

  2. Scott Lowther Avatar
    Scott Lowther

    $86M today is about $16M in 1976 money… or about 1.45 times the budget of “Star Wars.” That was a relatively modest budget movie at the time. So “Creator” is still a fair chunk of change, but compared to “2001” ($10M in 67 money, or $97 M ’23) or “Superman” ($55M in 77 or $287M today), it’s still kinda low.

    But, yeah. When I think about what *I* could do with $86 million….

    … sure, mostly abscond with it to Argentina or something, but if I *had* to make a movie, it might actually be something interesting.

    1. Petrock Avatar
      Petrock

      I am too immature to be trusted with that kind of budget. I would probably make a film about a beloved children’s toy, market it toward children and nostalgic parents, but the actual story would be a radical political statement.

      That or a pornographic film involving a one legged woman on a Ferris Wheel.