its the "costs" that doesn't really make sense, sure actors gets paid well due to their fame, but seriously why does a movie need to hit multi-hundred million dollars to make?
what they should do is strive for a way to make filming cheaper without compromising quality, or better yet simultaneously increase quality on top of cost reductions.
Isn't it because, on top of materials and overhead, you're also paying the salaries of up to several hundred people for months or years at a time? And many of those people are professionals or specialists with skills that are relatively rare?
Iron Man 3 credits 3,310 crew/cast members, took two years from pre-production to release, and had to pay over a hundred million for distribution rights even before they started making the film. That's not taking into account the marketing budget.
Of course, that's only for the big-budget, epic films.
Smaller/indie films have been made for less than ten million. That's why Blair Witch style movies can survive despite grossing less than fifty million. The average Bollywood film gets made with less than 500k US$.
But lets get real, how many Bollywood films do we watch compared to Hollywood films?
yes i agree that a big film can get quite expensive.
there are two things that can solve this issue.
one is use fewer personnel, which is possible by mechanizing the most laborious part.
the other is finish the film on a shorter time-frame, which is technically possible with thorough preplanning.
if we look at the actual filming part of making these movies, they aren't even that long.
for a 2hour movie at least, if the casts takes a 1hour break every 5minutes, thats 26hours of filming.
multiplied by the number of retakes it took to successfully get a proper take, e.g. 10times on average, you get just 260hours in total.
its the part where setting up the equipment on each take and the post-processing of the film that takes up so much time, they could improve this part if they so wish.
It's funny, cause I remember a Pepper Ann cartoon that had the main character complaining about flaws in a movie and deciding to do a movie herself to show that it could be done better. End conclusion: While a movie could technically be done more efficiently with less cost/people, that's only if you envision a movie project as something like a simulation game where the player controls everything.
IRL movie production is decided by many, many people, all of whom will insist on their input. Everyone from the executives, to the cast and crew have their own ideas. Often the executives are insistent on a particular aspect or theme or change their mind halfway (or several times). Often the director has a vision that plays merry hell with the scriptwriters' bias. Actors may be cooperative, or they may insist on certain things, and that's not getting into stuff like the Screen Actors Guild (now SAG-AFTRA) insistence on certain rules.
TLDR: Making a movie is often like running a small town. You have to make compromises with the people who work for you, the people who work with you, and the people above you.
Finally, Hollywood movies are often make or break for the company that made them. It's not unusual for entire companies to go under just because of a single bad movie, or even just bad luck (movies released at the same time as bigger movies, or movies released just after the outbreak of war or other calamities). Movies make the majority of their potential profit in their opening weeks, after which it's a pittance. And if your movie is a flop, the next movie has to make an even bigger profit in order to justify the studio's existence.
Mind you, Hollywood often lies too. For example, Lucasfilm has claimed that Return of Jedi "never made a profit" despite grossing ten times its budget.
But even taking into the lies and Hollywood accounting, there's no denying that movie-making is one of the biggest high-risk industries out there. Movies are a non-essential luxury and their success is based entirely on the whimsical tastes of the audience at release date.
It also grossed less than 10 million where Iron Man 3 grossed over a billion.
Doesn't mean that Iron Man 3 is better from a story-telling perspective, but epic films are just on a different scale.
thats only because its a popular title, you can make the same film using bollywood equipment.
Technically they can, but there are reasons Bollywood hasn't
produced comparable takes on epic superhero movies. Compare Iron Man to this 2016 Bollywood superhero movie
And popularity itself is a big incentive for making a movie. Popularity is directly proportional to profit after all.