| World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| Production Budgets http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=42920 |
Page 36 of 121 |
| Author: | Lotan [ Thu May 17, 2012 3:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
With its 11mln budget Alien was anything but a "small 70s horror movie". |
|
| Author: | _axiom [ Thu May 17, 2012 3:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
So a tentpole release means throwing away money left and right? It's not the comparison problem, Hollwood has become so inefficient when it comes to budgets. They waste money everywhere. The caterers are probably catered to too. Hey, people need to eat! |
|
| Author: | mark66 [ Thu May 17, 2012 4:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
$65m DICTATOR http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/d ... hen-325758 |
|
| Author: | Barrabás [ Thu May 17, 2012 5:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Magnus wrote: That's a big jump from 250m. Hopefully its accurate so the chances of a sequel are high. Fox is known for going cheap, I doubt they spent 250m unless it went wildly overbudget and Ridley used his influence to block studio interference. And it makes perfect sense for this to cost a lot more than Alien's adjusted price...the scope is much bigger. Alien was a claustrophobic horror film; this has scenes on Earth (on location?), CGI landscapes, big space ships exploding, etc. |
|
| Author: | David [ Thu May 17, 2012 10:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
be.redy wrote: The caterers are probably catered to too. Hey, people need to eat! Ah, the be.redy answer to conserving money: don't feed the caterers. They are replaceable. "Why not...the script girl?!" "Eh, I'll eat her later." |
|
| Author: | Biggestgeekever [ Thu May 17, 2012 1:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Magnus wrote: That's a big jump from 250m. Hopefully its accurate so the chances of a sequel are high. |
|
| Author: | mark66 [ Thu May 31, 2012 5:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
$170m SW&TH http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/en ... ?track=rss |
|
| Author: | lilmac [ Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Assuming a hefty marketing budget, SWATH will likely need $500m+ WW to break-even by boxoffice receipts. |
|
| Author: | Dil [ Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
$130M Prometheus $145M Madagascar 3 Link - http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/en ... ?track=rss Great budget control for both especially Prometheus. |
|
| Author: | Jack Sparrow [ Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
That is a good budget for Prometheus from the initial numbers. Mad3 also has a great number. With these numbers I am confident both will make out their budgets. Happy that Prometheus could see a sequel given that the OS takings are already strong. |
|
| Author: | Barrabás [ Fri Jun 08, 2012 7:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Fox is good with budgets, unlike Universal (I mean, Battleship cost more than any of the Transformers movies). |
|
| Author: | Dr. Lecter [ Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Magnus wrote: Fox is good perhaps but Ridley generally isn't. Keeping him in check is a big achievement. Looking at the footage it is flat-out insane that this was apparently $70 million cheaper than Robin fucking Hood. |
|
| Author: | _axiom [ Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Dr. Lecter wrote: Magnus wrote: Fox is good perhaps but Ridley generally isn't. Keeping him in check is a big achievement. Looking at the footage it is flat-out insane that this was apparently $70 million cheaper than Robin fucking Hood. Green screen/studio filming is cheaper than location, no? |
|
| Author: | Dr. Lecter [ Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
be.redy wrote: Dr. Lecter wrote: Magnus wrote: Fox is good perhaps but Ridley generally isn't. Keeping him in check is a big achievement. Looking at the footage it is flat-out insane that this was apparently $70 million cheaper than Robin fucking Hood. Green screen/studio filming is cheaper than location, no? But THAT much cheaper (and it also had about 1,000 more effects shots I suppose)? |
|
| Author: | _axiom [ Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Robin Hood had a lot of extras though. They needed food, drink, etc... That drains the budget a lot. I don't see its budget that unreasonable. Especially compared to some other similar movies. |
|
| Author: | Tuukka [ Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Robin Hood had a big variety of outdoor locations with large sets and thousands of extras. Prometheus has only a dozen actors, mostly just talking in indoor sets. I would imagine that the shooting schedule was much shorter, and there was much less money drainage every day. Despite epic SFX shots that bring scale, it's a smaller and more intimate movie, than Robin Hood. Ridley is a visual perfectionist, which is why his budgets tends to balloon. He wants to create functional, visually impressive imaginary worlds, and he wants everything in the frame *exactly* right, starting from tiniest details. Much like Cameron. There are no shortcuts with these guys, which is both a blessing and a curse. |
|
| Author: | MovieDude [ Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Honestly I wouldn't be shocked if Prometheus cost more than the budget Fox put out and they're playing damage control. We really don't often have strong ways of verifying these things do we? |
|
| Author: | Michael A [ Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
MovieDude wrote: Honestly I wouldn't be shocked if Prometheus cost more than the budget Fox put out and they're playing damage control. We really don't often have strong ways of verifying these things do we? Strong ways? Do we have any ways? Just getting budget numbers in the first place isn't a given, confirming those provided is pretty much impossible. |
|
| Author: | Malcolm [ Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
It's a conspiracy. |
|
| Author: | Tuukka [ Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
MovieDude wrote: Honestly I wouldn't be shocked if Prometheus cost more than the budget Fox put out and they're playing damage control. We really don't often have strong ways of verifying these things do we? Well, the same is true of every single movie out there. If we always suspect that the numbers have been fiddled to a great degree, it's pointless to even talk about them. We might as well say that we have no idea how much movies cost in general. All mentions of budgets and P/A costs in this thread and others would become pointless. |
|
| Author: | MovieDude [ Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
Tuukka wrote: MovieDude wrote: Honestly I wouldn't be shocked if Prometheus cost more than the budget Fox put out and they're playing damage control. We really don't often have strong ways of verifying these things do we? Well, the same is true of every single movie out there. If we always suspect that the numbers have been fiddled to a great degree, it's pointless to even talk about them. We might as well say that we have no idea how much movies cost in general. All mentions of budgets and P/A costs in this thread and others would become pointless. Taken to it's logical extreme, sure. I just remember when the budget was rumored to be 250 million, which is much more in line with Ridley Scott and movies with this many effects. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's not a terribly implausible theory. As for evaluating movies by benchmarks reported by their own corporate makers, any point is entirely subjective. |
|
| Author: | David [ Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
I don't blame MovieDude for speculating in this case. The movie is lavish from first frame to last, and Ridley Scott is a known perfectionist of the Kubrick/Mann/Fincher school. And those reports from the set, now collected on the film's Wikipedia page: "expanding the 007 set at Pinewood by over thirty percent," "principal photography extended to September," "shooting on location in Iceland and Jordan and Spain," etc. If the film was truly completed for 120 million, it almost seems a miracle. I s'pose they did save on star salaries. You don't see Leo DiCaprio or Russell Crowe or Denzel in this one. |
|
| Author: | Jack Sparrow [ Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
$250m could have included marketing budget WW, the movie was heavily marketed by Fox. But yeah $120m is like a great budget but then again the whole movie seems to be shot on a single set except for a few starting sequences. |
|
| Author: | David [ Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
The Prometheus has many rooms--personal quarters, medical bay, etc.--and then there are the tunnels, the "throne room" with the giant sculpted face, etc. Just very surprising Ridley Scott delivered a sci-fi epic for 30 million less than The Wolfman and Abrams' Star Trek, 20 million less than Captain America, etc. If it is true, though, then great. Easier to turn a profit and get the sequel greenlit. |
|
| Author: | mark66 [ Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Production Budgets |
$75m Rock of Ages $70m That's My Boy http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/en ... 1431.story |
|
| Page 36 of 121 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|