Mel Gibson: Superhero movies cost too much, BvS: DoJ ‘is a piece of sh-t’


It pains me to say this, but we’re probably going to be talking about Steroid Santa (aka Mad Mel, aka Mel Gibson) for months. His first directorial project in a decade, Hacksaw Ridge, debuted at the Venice Film Festival over the weekend, and the reviews are incredible. Like, critics love this movie and they think it could potentially win real Oscars. As we discussed on Labor Day, the film is a true story about a conscientious objector during World War II named Desmond Doss. Doss refused to use a weapon during the entire war – he was a medic, and he ended up winning the Medal of Honor. Steroid Santa clearly thinks highly of Doss and related to Doss’s story of faith and sacrifice. Previously, Mel quipped that Doss was the real hero, not some comic book “superhero” in tights. Well, Mad Mel has a new interview where he says much the same thing, only he name-checks Batman vs. Superman specifically. Some highlights:

The low budget for filming in Australia: “The exchange rate for the U.S. dollar was good at the time, and I think we locked in at about 72 cents on the dollar and took a $27 million budget and turned it into a $40 million budget. It was a completely Australian film, all the players were Aussies except Andrew [Garfield] and Vince Vaughn. So the whole production is an Aussie film, but a very American story, which is kind of unusual.”

He doesn’t understand why studios greenlight films that cost $200 million to make:
“I look at them and scratch my head. I’m really baffled by it. I think there’s a lot of waste, but maybe if I did one of those things with the green screens I’d find out different. It seems to me that you could do it for less… You’re spending outrageous amounts of money, $180 million or more, I don’t know how you make it back after the tax man gets you, and after you give half to the exhibitors. What did they spend on Batman v Superman that they’re admitting to?”

Hearing that BvS cost more than $250 million: “And it’s a piece of sh–. I’m not interested in the stuff. Do you know what the difference between real superheroes and comic book superheroes is? Real superheroes didn’t wear spandex. So I don’t know. Spandex must cost a lot.”

[From EW]

You can read the whole interview here at Deadline – I tried to skim the piece, but my God, that’s too much Mad Mel. I do have to admit something uncomfortable though… like, I dislike the man. I think he’s an abuser, an anti-Semite and an a—hole. But he’s not wrong about the way films are financed through studios. He’s not wrong AT ALL. It’s something I’ve been saying for years now: the current studio modus operandi is to throw good money after bad until you have these bloated, $200-million-plus budgets and studio executives are just praying that they can cook the books and break even and it happens time after time. And for what? Is this the new normal? Who says?


Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

66 Responses to “Mel Gibson: Superhero movies cost too much, BvS: DoJ ‘is a piece of sh-t’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Snarkweek says:

    He’s supposed to be on the naughty step.

  2. QueenB says:

    takes one to know one

    • lucy2 says:

      LOL, my first thought too.

    • Naya says:

      Yes. Funny how his Mad Max and Lethal Weapon movies had some of the biggest budgets of that era but here he is, whining. His real issue is that the big studios wont spend that money on him .

      • Algernon says:

        He’d be singing a different tune if he was the recipient of said $200 million budget. That said, the studios do waste a huge amount of money on blockbusters.

      • Sam says:

        @Naya Not really. Mel Gibson in his movie star prime headlined lower budget movies compared to say, Tom Cruise. The original Mad Max couldn’t be more low budget. While the third Mad Max had a record budget for an Australian film, it was modest by American standards.

        The first Lethal Weapon was a B actioner with a medium budget, the kind the studios don’t make anymore. It was only LW4 that got out of hand. Peter Bart wrote about it in his book The Gross: The Summer That Ate Hollywood. Warner Bros. realized they didn’t have a summer tentpole and rushed LW4 into production without a script on an insane shooting schedule. Studios do the same thing today, and it’s a big contributor to the inflated budgets.

    • LeAnn Stinks says:

      Jinx, I thought the same thing when I read the headline-LOL!!

      Kaiser, you forgot to add that he is also a misogynist. A racist (not just against Jews, but the whole LGBT community, and anyone who isn’t white. So he is bascially a white supremacist) and a substance abuser. All this, while under the guise of being a deeply religious and devout “man.”

      In essence, Mel is class A hypocrite and a major d-bag.

  3. lilacflowers says:

    So, Mel won’t be appearing as The Penguin in any DC films?

    • SM says:

      Maybe he wasn’t mad enough for a role so now he is taking out his anger on comic books superheroes. And i would love to see him get nominated for awards this season can you imagine how ceazy that would look like with all his speaches and comments and boozing. Glorious

  4. juice says:

    it pains me when shit people make good movies that i want to see.

    • DragonWise says:

      He is the worst when it comes to that! I’m an action movie junkie from way back, so I did see both Apocalypto and Get the Gringo on cable, and they were pretty great as genre films go! He’s a freakin’ maniac, but he knows what he’s doing behind the camera. I only watch his movies if they are on cable and I’m not directly lining his racist, misogynistic pockets. Also, he’s absolutely right about BvS and other films following that model. It really sucks that he’s right, but ya know, twice a day, stopped clock! :/

      • dj says:

        I hate to admit I agree with MG about anything. Unfortunately, I totally agree about how much $$$ are. being thrown at crap big-budget movies. I saw Indep Day 2 this summer and it was so BAD. Tons of money, talented actors, half way decent plot idea and it was still really terrible. MG is all kinds of wrong about women, LGBTQ, and many other things but not about movie making. He seems to be making smaller budget, interesting films like Clint Eastwood. Not fair, but he does have a good directors eye.

  5. Pedro45 says:

    He’s such a charmer.

  6. Locke Lamora says:

    I’m so conflicted about this. I don’t like Mel, but I really love his movies and I really love war dramas. And judging by the reviews this movie is amazing.
    Why do the best movies this year have to be made by horrible people?

    • Tash says:

      You’re so right. I was looking forward to Birth of the Nation…and this mad man knows how to make a movie :/ Ugh!

    • mila says:

      it is simple. separate art from the artist if you can. i can do it if we are not talking about a pedophile or a rapist.

      • Locke Lamora says:

        Yeah, but you are directly supporting the artist with your money if you bought a ticket.

      • Marty says:

        Homeboy literally told his ex that it would be her fault if she got “raped by a pack of n*****s”.

        So, uh…no. HARD pass on this film.

      • Naya says:

        How do you feel about wife abusers? Because I would think it would be right next to rapist.

  7. Brunswickstoval says:

    Yeah the messenger is a dick but the message is correct. It’s actually an offensive amount of money to spend on a movie.

  8. Alix says:

    Wouldn’t hit it with a barge pole.

  9. littlemissnaughty says:

    Sure, there are too many mediocre superhero movies. But they do make money. I’ve seen quite a few and for an evening of mindless entertainment, they’re great. If you don’t like them – and I shudder to think how many smaller movies could be made for one Avengers – okay. But why sh*t on the entire genre? You just sneered at everyone who enjoys them and that’s a big audience, fool!

    Btw, I’m not listening to someone who fancies himself a film critic but also starred in The Expendables 3. And The Patriot. I hate that movie.

    • Brunswickstoval says:

      But he’s not just saying he doesn’t like them. He’s questioning whether it’s worth spending so much money on films that perform so poorly. Obviously no one makes a very expensive film intending it to make no money, but there are bad directors and actors being thrown huge sums of money. Isn’t it worth questioning those decisions?

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Do they perform poorly? I don’t think so. Even BvS raked in what, more than $800 million? They don’t perform poorly. The quality of the stories and the question whether this is the same movie over and over again is something that can be debated. But not the numbers. Suicide Squad, by all accounts not the best movie, is making money. So yeah, he doesn’t like them. I don’t like the frequency with which they’re put out because I know that many other movies won’t get made because of it. But his arguement is quality and if it’s money, he’s wrong.

      • M.A.F. says:

        Movie studios are looking at returns not quality of script and the over-all production of the movie. If the movie MAKES BACK THE MONEY then studios will continue to make superhero films regardless.

    • Mia4S says:

      “Btw, I’m not listening to someone who fancies himself a film critic but also starred in The Expendables 3. And The Patriot. I hate that movie.”

      Thank you!!!! The Patriot was basically a superhero movie and other than beautiful looking Heath Ledger, it was awful! (Hopefully Scorsese does his George Washington movie, that has potential to be great and finally be a great modern Revolutionary War movie.)

  10. Neelyo says:

    Well the outside matches the inside now. He’s right about the studios but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Never been a fan of movies he appeared in and I find his directing skills somewhere between Kevin Costner and Jon Favreau.

    And his nose looks like a drunk’s nose.

    • C'est la Vie says:

      Love the Withnail reference. And I completely agree with everything you just wrote, I turn all of those movies off if I see them. We’ve also seen Depp’s Dorian Gray, now MM’s combined with Bad Santa.

  11. KHLBHL says:

    This might be just me but – is there anyone out there who saw the trailer and thought the movie looked really bad? Andrew Garfield’s accent was atrocious and it seemed like a cliche, corny, weepy melodrama. I felt like I’ve seen this movie in ten different iterations before. There are just too many films about WWII. I know it’s an important time in our history, but we’re ignoring a lot of other history to continue to concentrate on this one period that makes Americans feel good about themselves – feel like they’re on the right side of history.

    • alice says:

      I don’t understand how from a supposedly good movie can come out such an atrocious trailer. I agree Garfield’s accent is a disaster. It looked like a Forrest Gump parody. And somehow I cannot stand Andrew’s acting.

      • Kitten says:

        Have you seen “99 Homes”? Garfield really has a problem with accents.
        I will say as much as he annoys the piss out of me, his acting was quite good in that movie, minus the accent of course.

    • Elisa the I. says:

      Same here, I’m tired of the same old WW2 stories. There was also a WW1 *irony*.

      • Locke Lamora says:

        Haha, just eait until WW1 becomes popular again.
        I think WW1 is harder to do because there wasn’t good guys vs bad guys like WW2, so you can’t just have a hero who saves the day.

      • M.A.F. says:

        WWI also isn’t exciting. It’s four years of trench warfare that produced new weapons of war to break the stalemate. But as Locke Lamora said, there isn’t a clear “bad” guy since the war should have been a local issue until the Germans and Russians mobilized their military.

        I’ll put it to you this way, I’m a history teacher. I can knock out WWI in about two weeks. WWII takes me well over a month. Frankly, I’m over WWII movies. Move on to the Korean War or Vietnam.

    • Josefina says:

      Co-sign everything. Inglorious Basterds is legitimately the only American WWII film I recall liking. All other films are just less campy superhero tales about non-spandex wearing superheroes vs villains with funny moustaches. Europeans lived the horrors of WWII, so they make much more compelling and profound films about it.

      I always feel like mediocre WWII dramas are elevated to masterpiece status just because of American Pride and old white guys (the most powerful crítics and producers) having nostalgia for the old white times.

      I find it interesting how people take such offense with the 3-5 big slavery movies released in the past years, yet dont grow tired WWII dramas (which are made ALL the time). Slavery is too ugly to revisit but we must consistently be reminded of jewish genocide?

      • Micki says:

        Enemy at the Gates was one American WWII movie I didn’t find overly sugarcoated and actually liked. Helped too that I like Ed Harris.

    • Algernon says:

      It looked so cheesy to me. It looked like a trailer for a fake movie they play as a joke within another movie.

    • lunchcoma says:

      Completely agreed. I’m a little tired of white male Baby Boomers lionizing their parents’ generation. There are other stories and even other war stories.

  12. Mia4S says:

    Ummmmm, if he’s trying to come across as less crazy that beard is not helping!

  13. sensible says:

    He was so pretty back in the day, now looks the way he speaks…..ugly.

  14. TreadStyle says:

    I just can’t get over Andrew Garfield’s over done accent in the trailer. It looks good but I don’t think I can get past that, I mean it’s bad.

  15. als says:

    So Mel is telling the studios that he can deliver a better product with less money?
    I am guessing he is looking for a job in the franchise industry.

  16. Dorothy#1 says:

    I will never watch another Mel Gibson movie ever again.

  17. Rebecca says:

    Remember when he said something like, “[T]he jews have caused all the major wars” or something similar to that? I can’t remember the exact wording, but that’s the jist. I am wondering if he is thinking something horrible like, “[W]e shouldn’t have used weapons in WWII because the jews have caused all the wars……”

    Do you think it is possible that is why he made this film about a WW2 conscientious objector or am I just reading too much into it?

    He’s just an all around horrible person. There is no way I’m seeing his movie.

  18. freewhitebaby says:

    Sweat underneath man boobs is never a good look, Mel.

  19. Kitten says:

    Steroid Santa is such a perfect moniker.

  20. What was that says:

    I understand that despite the heroic’s of the main character it is a violent movie..more Speilberg D day on steroids too!!
    I find this man so repulsive inside and out..which is so sad as in his younger days he made some great films and looked great…Year of Living Dangerously especially ..
    He has turned into Mr Angry and makes angry films
    How he considers himself Christian is beyond me but I could never bring myself to put my hard earned money in his pocket…
    I would rather watch paint dry!

  21. Ash says:

    so i hope that you guys have the same level of vitriol for Mel as you did for Nate …… boycott his movie…and if you dont you really need to REEVAL how you cherry pick your protesting of public figures…. because Mel is racist, abuser, etc. etc. tried in a ocurt of law and had to either settle or pay it off…. but I really dont expect much from the establishment and media and or gossip sites.

    • FingerBinger says:

      Gibson has been getting vitriol for 7 years. Hollywood shunned him for years. Parker has been getting it for a month. You can’t compare it.

    • lunchcoma says:

      I don’t think there are many Gibson apologists here. I’m not planning to see this movie, either, not least because it sounds like a bore despite the good reviews.

    • Chewbacca says:

      I wouldn’t worry about it, there’s really no way that people will be able to forget what Gibson has said and done. His behavior was utterly repulsive and I know that people who DON’T cringe at the mention of him are in the minority. He’s grotesque, there are no other words for him. His entitlement is mind blowing, he really seems to believe that waiting a couple of years before putting himself out there means he deserves a clean slate. It really doesn’t work that way, at least for him. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  22. C. C. Cedras says:

    *repeats over and over and over again, The Year of Living Dangerously/Tequila Sunrise*

    • Taxi says:

      and Gallipoli/Lethal Weapon/Mad Max/Braveheart

    • dj says:

      Day-um! Those were the days (Tequila Sunrise & Year of Living Dangerously). I do not hear anyone here really saying they would spend money to support a Mel project anymore. My boycott list is: Tom Cruise, Mel Gibson, Nate (sorry, Freudian slip. I cannot remember his last name), Roman Polaski, Woody Allen, & Johnny Depp. It is long but I cannot give my money to these (you fill in the blank)!

  23. Chaine says:

    Remember when he was People’s “Sexiest Man Alive”? 😦

    • Locke Lamora says:

      He was really beautiful when he was young. And I don’t think we would be repulsed by him now if he wasn’t such a horrible person. He doesn’t look that bad.

      • Josefina says:

        I agree. I can’t stand the guy but Mad Max (the second one) was on TV the other day and god damn he was HANDSOME.

        Never thought much of him as an actor though.

  24. lunchcoma says:

    He’s right, of course, but neither of those facts make me a bit more interested in watching another Mel Gibson movie – especially if it’s yet another WWII story to add to the hundreds of other movies about WWII. Part of what should be the appeal of smaller movies is the ability to take some creative risks.

    • Sam says:

      Its protagonist is a conscientious objector and a medic. I can’t think of any WWII films with that combo, or any film about a medic. The HBO WWII series Band of Brothers did a good job of highlighting its medic. Sergeant York was about a WWI conscientious objector who was convinced to fight for reasons that were not very convincing to me. Unlike York, Desmond Doss stuck by his refusal to carry arms, and I’m curious to see how the film handles that. Especially in a WWII setting.

      • lunchcoma says:

        I mean, if people are interested because of that, then they should see the movie. To me, that’s not quite enough to overshadow the fact that we make movie after movie about events from 75 years ago rather than attempting to explore anything more recent, which might involve ambiguity or controversy or require the casting of actors beyond the usual Hollywood preferences.

      • Sam says:

        There’s Ang Lee’s upcoming Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, which looks like a Flag of Our Fathers for the second Iraq war. I have to confess that military dramas set during the most recent American conflicts aren’t as interesting to me. I don’t know why though.

  25. Jayna says:

    @Kitten, I couldn’t post a reply to you farther back. I also saw 99 Homes. What a great little indie flick that resonated with me because I live in Central Florida and was witness to the real estate bust here.

    I agree Andrew Garfield was really,
    really great in that movie, as was the amazing Michael Shannon playing his eventual shady boss. Both did an excellent job. I had such anxiety and dread at times watching that movie, with like a pit in the bottom of my stomach watching him evicted from their home and his desperation.

  26. EM says:

    As mad as Mel is, he is right about these superhero films, particularly the Superman vs Batman film. It was rubbish, just like Superman was.