The one rule I’ve always heard about the movie industry is never invest your own money. It’s practically unheard of due to all the things that can go wrong and how expensive it is. I guess M. Night Shyamalan and Matthew Vaughn never got the memo. While the two storytellers are nothing alike, they do have one thing in common: They both finance and own some of their movies. Shyamalan told me his reasons earlier this year when he was promoting Old:
“I paid for Visit, Split, Glass and Old. All four of those. And I pay for Servant as well. The reason that I do it is to do it at the smallest number where I can be free, and I can do something provocative and different and unusual and I’m not putting my partners at risk. I’m taking the risk. In most scenarios, because we’re doing it at such a small price, we’re going to be okay no matter what. So we can make the most interesting art.”
Shyamalan has been on a roll recently, producing hit after hit, and making each film for a fraction of the cost of most studio movies. While I have no idea how much money Shyamalan has made from producing his movies, I’m confident even if a film or two bombed at the box office he’d be fine, which explains why he can tell whatever kind of story he’s interested in and why he’s such a unique filmmaker.
And then we have Matthew Vaughn. He makes films with massive action set pieces that cost real money to produce. The other day when I participated in a group interview with Vaughn for his new movie, The Kings Man, my first question was about who owns the Kingsman franchise (because I’d heard he owns it) and his motivation for financing his films. He said:
“It’s a complicated question. The bottom line is MARV (his production company) does own Kingsman. I've been financing all my movies for a long time purely because I find it easier. I was lucky enough that once I started making…like Lock, Stock was the first thing we financed, and that was 900 grand. So, we've always tended to make profits, and then you get to a point where you make profits and then you make money in life.
And then when you make money in life, all these people come up to you and say, “Can we have your money to make money out of your money?” They’re rather scary sort of suit type people. I was like, you know what? I don't want to give you people my money, I'll just put it into my movies, because it's what I know and what I love. And if I don't believe in it, why would nobody else believe in it? So, yeah, I'm tapped out right now. Everything's just gone into Argylle. (laughs) So, hopefully, touch wood, it will come back.”
While Vaughn claims to be tapped out, Argylle is an Apple film, and I’m sure he has some sort of deal where Apple is paying enough of the costs that he’ll be fine. The question that I didn’t ask (and should have) is if Apple owns Argylle, or if Vaughn owns the property like Kingsman.
Speaking of Kingsman, with Vaughn recently saying he’s planning on filming Kingsman 3 with Taron Egerton and Colin Firth next September, I was curious if Fox/Disney had come on board to make the sequel. Vaughn said:
“In about four weeks, we'll be sitting down talking about whether they want to make Kingsman 3 with me. They get first dibs.”
So what happens if Fox/Disney says they don’t want to do it? I asked if he could take the franchise somewhere else. In Vaughn's words:
“If they decide not to do it, in theory, yes. If I decide to do it, then no one can make one, either. So, the ball’s pretty much in my court.”
What this means is if Disney/Fox sits down with Vaughn and says they don’t want to make Kingsman 3, he can take the sequel to any studio or streamer to see if they want to finance and distribute the film. I’d imagine someone would want to work with him on the film, even if they don’t have the rights to the previous installments. With the meeting in a few weeks and a start date on the horizon, chances are we will find out soon whether the sequel is staying at Disney/Fox or not.
Look for more from my interview with Vaughn soon.