'A films success depends on the budget'

‘A films success depends on the budget’ to what extent do you agree with this statement?

I don’t think a film’s success necessarily depends on its budget, only to some extent do I agree with this statement. Some low budget films make a considerable impact in the media; nonetheless it depends how you, the audience see ‘success’.

This is England and Avatar are two contrasting movies, their budgets couldn’t be more different. A staggering $150 million was spent on Avatar whereas only £1.2 million was spent on this is England. The directors had their own specific aims for their films, successfully their intentions were fulfilled.

This is England’s main aim was to attract a British audience, the directors specifically elected British actors to star in the film; this was to show the audience that it was an Independent British film. Also, Optimum a British company distributed the film. Evidently, This is England’s audience wasn’t far spread, perhaps with a low budget attracting a smaller audience was Shane meadows intentions. In comparison to Avatar, James Carmon’s desired to have a world-wide audience. Both directors met their objective.

This is England had a low budget there was no sets built, no famous actors, no star marketing and no high tech equipment but this didn’t stop them to creating a satisfying film, displaying England’s rural areas. In production if they had used high-tech cameras, the newest technology etc like what Avatar did to the extreme, it wouldn’t be the message that Shane Meadows wanted to give, he didn’t set out to make the area look favourable or magical like Avatar, he wanted England to get an insight of Nottingham, which I think he did exceptionally well. I don’t think the budget affected Shane Meadows, he didn’t need to create anything spectacular or mythical as it is just Nottingham, not a composed magical land like Avatar, where Cameron relied on the new technology to create it.

James Cameron needed the substantial budget to create the fantasy world of Avatar. If Cameron didn’t have a big budget, Avatar wouldn’t/couldn’t be created.    3D, new technologies and etc, played a massive part in the film. Some could argue that that’s proof you need a high budget to make such a diverse and ingenious film, but that’s only one way of looking at success. Avatar did hit 503 cinemas in the first week and 485 in the second, leading to higher box office sales (and a larger profit), benefitting the institution. Also releasing in a total of 3,457 theatres in the US, of which 2,032 theatres ran it in 3-D. In total 90% of all advance ticket sales for Avatar were for 3-D screenings showing that audiences were seeing the film for the 'experience'. It had an absolute raging success, the success that Cameron intended to get. Cameron’s intentions was to get that buzz, to get the world talking about the new land of Avatar, engaging the audience to enter the mythical land. Merchandise, such as the coca cola bottle, Mcdonalds promoting to ‘Avatarize yourself’ and books and video games created was all part of Cameron’s plan. Shane Meadows however didn’t intend to make This is England a worldwide hit, or anything fancy. They both wanted success in didn’t ways.

Counter arguments would dispute with success being what you make it. Some only see success as getting the highest box office rates, selling the most merchandise etc. With Avatar having the higher budget they would agree with the statement. It is very narrow minded, as not all directors intentions is to make a film like Avatar.

I personally think success is what you make it. Some films have had high budgets and high expectations to sadly not succeed. I understand that the budget is crucial when making a film but I also believe how you manage the budget makes a film successful. If you work around the budget, without being too ambitious you can create an exceptional and entertaining film, just like those with big budgets!