Magnus wrote:
jj. wrote:
DP07 wrote:
250m should only ever go to a very well know and popular property.
I can't even think of a property worth that risk for the first installment.
Avatar.
Avatar was no risk. Cameron delivers. Always.
| World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| Production Budgets http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=42920 |
Page 32 of 121 |
| Author: | jj. [ Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
DP07 wrote: Spiderman would have been. Harry Potter. Not that it's needed, or pays off. Maybe. I don't even know if those would justify that kind of scratch for the first film. Wrong director or writers and both franchises could have been smothered in their crib. |
|
| Author: | DP07 [ Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
jj. wrote: DP07 wrote: Spiderman would have been. Harry Potter. Not that it's needed, or pays off. Maybe. I don't even know if those would justify that kind of scratch for the first film. Wrong director or writers and both franchises could have been smothered in their crib. No, they were set before OW. Bad reactions could have hurt the sequels. |
|
| Author: | jj. [ Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Yep, Cameron is the exception to every rule. |
|
| Author: | DP07 [ Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
What about the rule that says the director of the highest grossing movie all time will repeat? |
|
| Author: | jj. [ Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
DP07 wrote: jj. wrote: DP07 wrote: Spiderman would have been. Harry Potter. Not that it's needed, or pays off. Maybe. I don't even know if those would justify that kind of scratch for the first film. Wrong director or writers and both franchises could have been smothered in their crib. No, they were set before OW. Bad reactions could have hurt the sequels. There was certainly pent up demand for both franchises hitting the screen, but they got lucky with the right talent. 9 times out of 10 that's not happening. (Hence: going conservative with the first installment and blowing up with sequels) |
|
| Author: | Nazgul9 [ Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Magnus wrote: jj. wrote: DP07 wrote: 250m should only ever go to a very well know and popular property. I can't even think of a property worth that risk for the first installment. Avatar. Avatar was no risk. Cameron delivers. Always.
|
|
| Author: | Nazgul9 [ Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
jj. wrote: DP07 wrote: jj. wrote: DP07 wrote: Spiderman would have been. Harry Potter. Not that it's needed, or pays off. Maybe. I don't even know if those would justify that kind of scratch for the first film. Wrong director or writers and both franchises could have been smothered in their crib. No, they were set before OW. Bad reactions could have hurt the sequels. There was certainly pent up demand for both franchises hitting the screen, but they got lucky with the right talent. What? Harry Potter 1 is the poster child for mediocrity. |
|
| Author: | jj. [ Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Nazgul9 wrote: jj. wrote: DP07 wrote: jj. wrote: DP07 wrote: Spiderman would have been. Harry Potter. Not that it's needed, or pays off. Maybe. I don't even know if those would justify that kind of scratch for the first film. Wrong director or writers and both franchises could have been smothered in their crib. No, they were set before OW. Bad reactions could have hurt the sequels. There was certainly pent up demand for both franchises hitting the screen, but they got lucky with the right talent. What? Harry Potter 1 is the poster child for mediocrity. But it was safe and didn't suck (ditto for Spider-Man). As weak as Columbus' entries were: he cast the talent and crafted the on-screen world. Without that, it could have been Narnia. |
|
| Author: | Nazgul9 [ Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
I bet Carter doesn't suck either. The difference is, it isn't an adaptation of a hugely popular, contemporary book. |
|
| Author: | DP07 [ Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
jj. wrote: DP07 wrote: jj. wrote: DP07 wrote: Spiderman would have been. Harry Potter. Not that it's needed, or pays off. Maybe. I don't even know if those would justify that kind of scratch for the first film. Wrong director or writers and both franchises could have been smothered in their crib. No, they were set before OW. Bad reactions could have hurt the sequels. There was certainly pent up demand for both franchises hitting the screen, but they got lucky with the right talent. 9 times out of 10 that's not happening. (Hence: going conservative with the first installment and blowing up with sequels) I don't think there is any luck. Even movies like Tomb Raider, POTA, and The Village opened well regardless. Those all had less solid support. |
|
| Author: | Jack Sparrow [ Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Well I can't see how the marketing is ONLY $100m they have been marketing this like hell. I was thinking more like $130m-$150m marketing for John Carter but then again this in itself is quite shameful for Disney. The signs are now ALL pointing at Disney having another Mars failure in March. |
|
| Author: | mark66 [ Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
$211m BATTLESHIP $40m according to Paramount / $70m according two people familiar with the production A THOUSAND WORDS http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/enterta ... 26+Buzz%29 |
|
| Author: | Brian [ Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
mark66 wrote: $211m BATTLESHIP $40m according to Paramount / $70m according two people familiar with the production A THOUSAND WORDS http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/enterta ... 26+Buzz%29 211m?? Wtf, that's even a more outrageous budget than JC |
|
| Author: | Mesjarch [ Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
mark66 wrote: $211m BATTLESHIP $40m according to Paramount / $70m according two people familiar with the production A THOUSAND WORDS http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/enterta ... 26+Buzz%29 Wow  Good luck with making your money back to both movies. What a waste of money.
|
|
| Author: | _axiom [ Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Kitsch stars in Battleship too? OMG. The kid has some bad mojo it seems. |
|
| Author: | Brian [ Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
be.redy wrote: Kitsch stars in Battleship too? OMG. The kid has some bad mojo it seems. haha, forgot about that point! |
|
| Author: | MadGez [ Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Yeah spending this much on a film like John Carter is ridiculous. I suspect Carter was the reason Disney freaked out over Lone Ranger's budget and shut it down last year. |
|
| Author: | Jack Sparrow [ Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
I think we all knew that Battleship was costly but yeah an exact confirmation is just hitting hard. And yeah Taylor Kitsch is starring in two of the biggest budgeted movies this year, might not be a good idea going big time. Atleast Battleship looks a little better than John Carter, still regardless both movies will have tough time getting their money back from the theatrical run. That is quite big for A Thousand Words even with troubled production $40m in itself is too damn expansive forget about $70m. A really pricey weekend coming up with big flops left and right. |
|
| Author: | Nazgul9 [ Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Again, Battleship looks expensive, dunno why you're acting so surprised. |
|
| Author: | jj. [ Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
I think Battleship has more of a chance of breaking out than Carter, but yeah: two big-time failures in a row could smother TK's leading man career before the summer is over. |
|
| Author: | Jack Sparrow [ Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Nazgul9 wrote: Again, Battleship looks expensive, dunno why you're acting so surprised. Agreed Battleship with the latest trailers does look expensive. Plus I remember someone said earlier that shooting films over water is expensive and even though this movie will surely have city scenes I believe majority of it would have been shot over water. |
|
| Author: | mark66 [ Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
LAT: $6m CASA DE MI PADRE $42m 21 JUMP STREET |
|
| Author: | Jack Sparrow [ Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
That's great for both the openers this weekend. |
|
| Author: | Corpse [ Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
The Hunger Games Budget: $100 million (or closer to $80 million with tax credits) Marketing: $45 million http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 1753.story |
|
| Author: | Jack Sparrow [ Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
The budget is still on high end for THG but not a bad investment. |
|
| Page 32 of 121 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|