The guilds aren't there to make sure the A-listers get their huge paychecks, they're there to support the greater community of actors at large, the vast majority of whom need those paychecks to stay afloat. (And not just actors, of course; the same applies to all members of the production and post-production community).

The studios pay out these huge amounts because they've paid off in the past and movies (for better or worse) are made in fear. If you pay a ton of money to an A-lister and lose, you can always point to past performance and say "hey, but it worked before" -- and you might just save your job. Taking chances with "riskier" people (read: cheaper/more unknown) means you might hit the jackpot, but if you lose, you'll get canned too. And of course the reverse is true with actors picking projects too. Most decisions at the upper levels of studio movie development, sadly, are made out of sheer fear.

According to IMDB PoP was made for $150 million. If correct that is actually quite good. Means it'll end up a solid moneymaker.

Killers, on the other hand - $75 million - WTF?

Well, the director also delivered three $80+ million grossers in a row.

However all of them managed to keep the budget below $45 million...

And thinking about it...it could be Lionsgate's most expensive film...

$135m SHREK 4
less than $10m MacGRUBER

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/con ... 1b48b21d89

Good for both.

Isn't that dirt cheap for Shrek?

HTTYD cost like 150m.

A much needed compilation this thread needs:

Alice in Wonderland 200m [LA Times]
Prince of Persia 200m [LA Times]
Robin Hood 200m (237m before rebates) [The Wrap]
Iron Man 2 170m [LA Times]
How to Train Your Dragon 165m [LA Times]
Inception 160m [LA Times]
Sorcerer's Apprentice 150m [LA Times]
Last Airbender 150m (marketing=+130m) [LA Times] 145m (marketing=+50m) [Deadline]
Shrek 4 135m [THR]
Clash of the Titans 122m [LA Times]
Salt 110m (before rebates 130m) [LA Times]
Wolfman 110m (150m before rebates) [LA Times]
Knight & Day 107m [LA Times]
A-Team 100m (110m before rebates) [LA Times]
Green Zone 100m [LA Times]
Sex and the City 2 98m (little less than 100m) [LA Times]
Percy Jackson 95m [LA Times]
Cats & Dogs 2 85m [LA Times]
Other Guys 85m [LA Times]
Expendables 82m/85m [LA Times] 20m distrib rights + 40m marketing Britain [LA Times]
Grown Ups 75m (between 70-80m) [LA Times]
Shutter Island 75m [LA Times]
Despicable Me 70m [LA Times] 69m [THR]
Dinner for Schmucks 69m [LA Times]
Eclipse 68m [Deadline]
Oceans 66m (49m euros) [CBO]
Eat Pray Love 60m [LA Times]
Scott Pilgrim 60m (85m before tax rebates) [LA Times]
Date Night 55m [LA Times]
Valentine's Day 52m [LA Times]
Marmaduke 50m [LA Times]
Kick Ass 50m (15m distribution) [LA Times]
Jonah Hex 47m [LA Times]
Bounty Hunter 45m (40 to 50m) [LA Times]
Charlie St Cloud 44m [LA Times]
Killers 40m (75m without tax credits + OS distribution) [LA Times]
Get Him to the Greek 40m [LA Times]
The Karate Kid 40m [LA Times]
Predators 40m [LA Times] 38m [THR]
Step Up 3D 38m (less than 40m) [THR] 30-35m [LA Times]
Cop Out 37m [LA Times]
Hot Tub Time Machine 36m [LA Times]
Back Up Plan 35m [LA Times]
Furry Vengeance 35m [LA Times]
Nightmare on Elm Street 35m [LA Times]
Repo Men 32m [LA Times]
Takers 32m [LA Times]
Piranha 3D 25-30m [LA Times]
Splice 26m [IMDB]
The Losers 25m [LA Times]
Death at a Funeral 21m [THR]
The Crazies 19m [LA Times]
Lottery Ticket 17m [LA Times]
Ramona and Beezus 15m [THR]
Wimpy Kid 15m [LA Times]
Just Wright 12.5m [Variety]
MacGruber 10m (less than 10m) [LA Times]
Last Exorcism 2m [LA Times]

Need: Letters to Juliet, Just Wright, Brooklyn's Finest, The Last Song, Why Did I Get Married 2?, Our Family Wedding, She's Out of My League, Remember Me

That's very weird (Dragion vs. Shrek 4) if you consider that Myers, Diaz, Banderas and Murphy are probably being paid A LOT for the franchise by now.

Myers, Diaz and Murphy were paid $10 million each for Shrek 2 (and probably way more for the third)

I don't think that they were paid more for SH4 than SH3 when all of Hollywood is tightening their belts...

And because of the previous movies they didn't have to start from scratch - most of the characters and the look were already developed. Look at IA3, that one cost only $95m...

But...

Shrek 2 - $150 million

Shrek the Third - $160 million

And now, six years after Shrek 2, Shrek 4 was made for less?

Well, let's say that DIAZ, MURPHY & MYERS got $15m each for SH3 and 10m each for SH4 that's already a saving of $15m...
Plus: With other animated movies they always push the limits of what can be achieved with modern CGI. They can't do that with SHREK as they have to keep the look the same as in 2001 - a whopping nine years ago. So we're talking huge savings here which should offset the $10m-$15m for doing the movie in 3D...

WTF? They've improved CGI throughout the series.

Also with that logic TS3 should look like crap compared to today's CGI movies.

Nothing I've seen from SH4 compares with the look of DRAGONS...

That doesn't mean they haven't improved from Shrek 3. They could've possibly used the same developed engine, renderer or whatever from their recent movies to save production money. Shrek 4 will sell with or without significant improvements in animation. But your argument that it has to look like the first movie is completely invalid.

Actually even with no good stars less than 10M for McGruber looks a bit weird to me

How does the rebates system work in the US?

Variety (print)

$12.5m JUST WRIGHT

LAT:

"a little less than $100 million" S&TC2
$200m PRINCE OF PERSIA

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

Wow with the opening PoP got there is no chance of 200M. Also the OS numbers are not that great, there is a strong chance that this might not cross RH in OS and WW gross. Domestically I think RH is doing better than this so 200M is really really high for this.

SATC2 on the other hand is just OK. It will not be a moneymaker but the studios will definitely get more than they invested on this.

LAT:

$75m KILLERS
$50m MARMADUKE
$40m GREEK

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

IMDB:

$26m SPLICE

Well the article still says that the budget after tax credit of Killers in $40M

No, that's tax credits AND selling off foreign rights which means that LG won't see any money from international grosses until local distributors break even and than some...

Hmm didn't knew they can do that

Killers will have tough time making 75M though it might make 40M. The movie ain't that great and I see a multiplier of 2.5 after an opening of 15-17M. So somewhere between 38-43M

Greek could be a good money maker with only 40M to cover. Universal for once controlled the budget well.

Splice should be ok for 26M even with dismal opening and poor legs it should make about 26-30M. Though not much of money making eh

Marmaduke 50M will be a definite fail this week. 50M seems out of reach as of now, though it might definitely cover the budget with Overseas market.