I wonder if The Beaver would be a wide release if it weren't for...everything. 21 mil. isn't TOO bad for a movie with Gibson and Foster. Could still turn a profit after its international release.

I'm seeing it Sunday.

That's very good number for all the openers...including Thor which will breeze past its budget by Saturday (in WW total). SB will gain in OS and JB should make double its budget domestically.

$32.5m BRIDESMAIDS
$60m PRIEST

at least $250m THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/

A bit higher than I expected for both Bridesmaids and Priest.

I wonder if the 60 mil. figure includes the money spent converting it into 3-D. Which I presume is a fairly expensive process?

Priest looked a little costlier to me and that is a good budget for Bridesmaids IMO

60m? That's way too high.

Bridesmaids seems okay.

TDKR- Why does the budget for sequels keep going up? Is it because Nolan, Bale, Freeman etc know TDK grossed 1B? Because Nolan doesn't overuse CGI and he manages his budget well. Potter is another one but I guess Radcliffe, Watson and Grint get at least $15m each by now.

Walt Disney Studios confirmed Friday that its upcoming film “Oz” -- a prequel to the 1939 classic “The Wizard of Oz” -- will be filmed in Michigan after all.
The movie, directed by Sam Raimi, has a production budget of more than $150 million and would be the largest feature film to ever shoot in Michigan.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/

That's quite a budget. Not sure how this will do, I mean the movie is very well-known but isn't it tooooo long a wait?

Whatever happened to "the reboot will be much cheaper"?

$220m THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

http://www.moviehole.net/201141034-nort ... ls-villain

That budget for SM is hilarious We will see how The X-Men reboot does, but currently I have that one at $140-$150m, and I'm thinking the same about Spider-Man. I mean, I don't remember we had previous cases where relatively fresh and vital franchises where rebooted as a teen prequel or whatever... I mean what the hell is going on in the new SM that it costs so much??? Raimi's threesome had a lot of VFX, but haven't they said this was more of a character piece than a visual extravaganza like the previous series????

And I see that Disney plays a bit dirty and names its movie a prequel to a beloved classic just to get some more buzz in the marketing. I'm guessing they want another Alice In Wonderland out of Oz, thus the big budget.

Really what are they doing with $220m in the new SM? The actors are relatively new so they won't ask for much which means they have spent the money either very loosely or in the VFX which we will know soon, though as Magnus said the number could go down when the official sources confirm it.

Pirates 4 - $250M

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/d ... ive-190672

LOL and it was suppose to cost a little bit more then first movie and way less than second and third. Once again Bruckheimer doesn't how to know keep his budgets tight.

Well, the budget is under $200 million if you remove Depp's paycheck.

Depp doesn't deserve the huge paychecks he gets.

Studios should put a clause in their contracts when signing up these big stars. If the movie makes shit load of profits then you will be paid 5-10% of the profit.

At what point does it become ridiculous, though? I guess from a business perspective, you keep throwing money at stars if the film turns a tidy profit, but to the rest of us, it's dumb. I guess it's no different than professional athletes.

That is definitely a very big budget, but considering the movie will make loads of money it should be easily recovered. I agree on the fact that they could have kept the budget tight and Depp might deserve a good check but $55m for a single movie is very high...there are actors who won't see such money in their whole career. While Depp is good and the biggest selling point of Pirates, they could settled for quite less.

^Agreed with the above rationale. Marketing was focused entirely on Depp's Jack Sparrow and as the numbers are going around it should easily equal its budget by end of its Domestic OW. (albiet with a very strong OS numbers). There is a very good chance that this will make $250m WW in its OW alone everywhere.

Without Depp, the film would be pretty much guaranteed to make 1 billion less money on combined theatrical, DVD, TV, merchandise, etc.

So the studio pays Depp 55 million, and he gives them 1 billion in return (Or 500 million, because they have to share the money with theaters, retailers, etc).

That sounds like a pretty fucking good deal for the studio. It's in no way "too much", or unfair, or whatever.

Except that this one will be close to but not reach 1B this time

I was talking about *combined* sales

This is how I see it is: 900+ million theatrical, 900+ million DVD/Blue-ray sales and rentals, and then 300 million from other revenue (sponsors, tie-ins, TV, merchandise, internet, etc). Of course we can't know exact numbers, but these shouldn't be too far off.

That's 2.1 billion in revenue.

Without Depp the film would make maybe 400 million worldwide, another 400 million on home market, and 100 from other revenue. That's 900 million. A POTC film without Depp would be much harder to sell.

WTF moment of the day:

$160m SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/ ... f-all.html

Universal really has no control over the budget of their films. I wouldn't be surprised if Fast Six costs over $200 million.

They must be assuming Twilight numbers...?

I thought Universal was controlled by Comcast that is run by smarter people.

$150m KFP2
$80m H2

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/