Yeah..........no way Red Dawn is going to recoup that money (domestically anyway).

To me it doesn't even look expensive, its more like a cheap DTV movie nothing more than $15m-$20m. Maybe I am wrong but $65m is just too much for this kind of movie.

And it was filmed three years ago, long before Chris Hemsworth or Josh Hutcherson might demand a relatively hefty fee. It seems to be largely set in the forest or on generic small-town streets. I am mystified by the high budget. I expected no more than 25 or 30 million.

Turning China into North Korea ain't cheap.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 5726.story

The article also describes it as a 60 million dollar production, so I s'pose this was just always an expensive endeavor. Who knew?

Asians are good at math.

They wouldn't have been given a $100m budget if we pro rate it backwards.

I don't understand you. Why do we compare all these budgets here then? Everything is apples and oranges if you use that logic.

Um, I can't be bothered looking it up but I remember you did because whoever you were trying to discredit attacked you with that same criticism.

I don't think me being a Lionsgate executive or a fan makes any difference. It's simple, that what it cost back then is not what it'll cost now. You say you have done economics, so you should understand then. Ceteris paribus, Twilight is still cheaper than SW/LOTR. What else do you want to factor in then? The economy at the time and all kinds of unquantifiables? Don't track box office then.

First of all if you read my first post I have been saying that the budget for Twilight is on the higher end. What I don't agree is that comparing this budget to a 10 year old movie which costs about $20m less to this one and making that as an example that the budget is wrong.

I compare budgets relatively, meaning that the movies like Twilight in the past have been made for $50m or so, but then again these movies are making much more money and BD2 has some CGI work (even though it is way crappier), so I would have said $70m-$80m (including inflation) would have been good. $120m is definitely higher but you can't say Twilight's budget is bad BECAUSE LOTR was made at $20m cheaper cost in 2003, they are totally different set of movies. Twilight movies are spending a lot of money on the cast which is not true for LOTR or even Star Wars.

Variety reports some Paramount budgets:

$160m WORLD WAR Z
$60m JACK REACHER
$25m PAIN & GAIN

Not bad for Jack Reacher, honestly. This is the type of star vehicle where the budget often balloons to 80, 90, even 100 million.

Amazing number for Pain & Gain. It will be a huge hit.

Not sure I believe those budgets. Seems far too small for Pain & Gain and Jack Reacher, and too big for World War Z. Although the WWZ budget is probably expected as they re-shot the whole movie, is that right?

Glad if Jack Reacher does have a budget of $60m, though, because it's going to be a huge success.

WWZ's budget is kinda expected and even though with re-shoots the budget looks good it is still too high for an end-of-the-world zombie movie IMO.

Jack Reacher if true it should be able to benefits from Cruise's name and open big enough to make this a very profitable affair.

Great number for Pain and Gain but then again it doesn't look like something that will be very expensive. But given the cast the number looks really good.

That number is insanely low for Pain & Gain. The cast alone will yield $15-$20m. It stars Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Anthony Mackie, Ed Harris and Tony Shalhoub. Michael Bay, though, is said to be taking scale, so that cut it down a lot.

Well, according to Michael Bay himself, the budget is $22m, not $25m.
http://www.michaelbay.com/blog/files/87 ... 9b-754.php

$15m KILLING THEM SOFTLY

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/en ... 0244.story

I can believe that. There was nothing worth anything in this movie apart from Brad Pitt's salary. The rest would have been so utterly cheap. I reckon that Pitt got paid $14.999m for this

That's smart and great budget for Killing Me Softly.

No, it's not. Still too high.

Should be $12m<

Yeah movies should be made for free

Depends on how much Pitt got paid, because there was nothing of much else in the movie that would have costed a lot.

Warners and all other financing partners should have no concerns of the "Hobbit" franchise turning a profit. "An Unexpected Journey," along with the second and third "Hobbit" installments, "The Desolation of Smaug" and "There and Back Again," together cost more than $600 million to produce.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118063609

Pretty hefty. But easy to turn a profit.

That's with additional budget for film 3 i would wager. They are shooting for like 2 months next year.

No wonder they made it into 3 movies. It's now just 200M+ for a movie and not 300M+ for a movie.

That's one of the downsides of 48fps -- CGI shots must be rendered for twice as many frames, and are thus twice as expensive.