Why doesn't Hollywood do more low budget movies? Almost

impatient, money-grubbing Jews

because they don't
you need big stars, set pieces, flashy cgi all in in order to sell a movie and compete with other blockbusters.

>>84393104
>Why doesn't Hollywood do more low budget movies?
a) marketing budget is not included in production budget b) if a low budget high risk flick suceeds you're getting some money, if a high budget low risk capeshit succeeds, you're getting ALL of the money

In short: ALL THE MONEY > some money, and they can easily write off any loss because they're already sitting on all of the money

Several reasons
1) big budget movies are easier to market
2) one succesfull blockbuster can make up for 10 flops
3) low budget movies are not flop-proof

Basically low risk - low reward, high risk - high reward. And I'm not talking about them artistic risks.

>>84393104
because of (((Hollywood accounting)))

because all them big budget remakes have been huge right guys?!?

name ONE that did good

and im not talking about nostalgia animated movie to live action movie from disney

>>84393281
split has never made a profit according to hollywood

>>84393362
We'll write it off as goyim tax, now find me obscure 80s action flicks for the name recognition bucket

>>84393443
> split has never made a profit according to hollywood

Why? I know shamalamadingdong self-funded the entire film

How did that piece of shit end up costing 9m?

>>84393478
Basically no movie ever makes a profit according to their accounting practices. It's all about taxes and subsidies n shit
They are only forced to admit it for the really absurdly profitable stuff like Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch Project

Because Hollywood blockbusters are a money laundering scheme.