$35m BACK-UP PLAN (LAT)
$25m LOSERS (IMDB)
$66m OCEANS* (CBO)

*49m Euros = $66m (CBO = French B.O. Tracking Company)

LAT confirms $25m for LOSERS...

JLO + Alex O'Loughlin are 40% more expensive than Morgan + Saldana + Evans + Elba + a bunch of explosions?

And both groups of people are less expensive than a couple of fish...

What the hell did they spend $35 million on with The Back Up Plan?! No way Lopez is worth more than $7-8 million nowadays. And the rest of the film looks quite cheap...

Her hairdresser, her make-up artist, her personal assistant, her massage therapist, her - need i go on?

$35m NIGHTMARE
$35m FURRY

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/enterta ... rseas.html

$170m IRON MAN 2

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/enterta ... rseas.html

On that note, if we do trust them, then knocking out the budgets for

ANOES and FV (both 35m) and Spy Next Door (45m) only When in Rome and Our Family Wedding have no budgets.

Well, BOM is not very consistent...
For example: BOM decided to ignore the tax rebates concerning WOLFMAN which brought the costs down from $150m to $110m. On the other hand BOM decided to subtract the tax rebates concerning SHUTTER ISLAND which brought down the costs from $100m to $75m/$80m...
That's not fair in my opinion...

So Marvel Studios has similar deal with Paramount that LucasFilm had with Fox for SW Prequels. I think that's a really good deal for them.

$200m ROBIN HOOD ($237m before tax rebates)

http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/robin ... 2010-17200

Universal - WTF?

Looks like every other poster on these boards could run this studio better...

LOL. LOL. LOL.

And the funny thing is their movies always look like half the real budget was put into them.

I know, it's not so much that their films are disappointing, but even at maximized potential grosses at best their movies are break-even. I mean is a film like Wolf Man or Green Zone ever going to gross more than 110M or so domestically? Was there ever a realistic scenario where Robin Hood does more than Gladiator did unadjusted? Probably not.

They spent 200 million on RH yet they cant afford to add a power ballet to the soundtrack?

Just goes to show how unreliable most published "official" budgets are, since ROBIN HOOD's was supposedly $155m.

Also, is Universal really the total outlier here, or are other budgets similarly fudged? I suspect to some degree they are: looking at RH's breakdown, they spent a lot above-the-line (obviously), and on locations, etc -- but on the other hand their VFX budget wasn't incredibly high. It'd be interesting to see the real breakdowns on other major summer films: I suspect many of them are significantly more expensive than what they claim to be.

Time period costuming isnt exactly cheap. In fact most of these films are more expensive than the CGI FX films

It might be the other way around when Ridley is employed when the project already got most of the budget and stuff.

I don't know how on earth Kingdom of Heaven could be profitable when they've cut half a movie turning it into a mess.

P.S. Seems like Universal is playing with the taxes, that's why the budgets are so high, because they get rebates and initiatives and stuff.

Looking at the budget in more detail, RH gets killed on above-the-line expenses (A-list stars and directors cost $$$) and shooting a period piece with largely practical/real sets. I guess Universal hopes to get close to profit after home video, and maybe (if they're lucky) turn a bit more profit if the movie breaks out bigger-than-expected. Plus presumably they keep Ridley and Crowe happy for future possible movies.

It's worth pointing out, though, that VFX-heavy pictures spent way more on VFX than RH did, which offsets some (and possibly most) of the expense.

So, what's your opinion on director's cut?

This is like the biggest difference between the theatrical and director's cut - they've cut like 45 minutes. Haven't seen it yet (keep it for some special mood). My friend though have, says the movie is awesome. Other people say those versions are incomparable, because one is a rushed mess, and the other is a complete movie with all the character development, motivation, finished story, etc. Should have been a masterpiece and a hit, and they've fucked it up in the editing room.

З.Ы. Guys, what's RH?

RH = Robin Hood.

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: THE DC is superb. One of the best films put out that year. KOH: THEATRICAL CUT is a muddled, mediocre mess -- it's too long to be a fun adventure film and too short to develop all the characters successfully, so it's basically the worst of both worlds. The extra 40+ minutes on the DC gives the film much needed scope, gravitas, and more fully developed characters (major characters and supporting ones).