I don't think the budget is on the higher end when comparing last installments but I do agree they could have done with lesser budget. If the reports for $150m budget are correct then the budget is good. They did shoot it in many locations so it might be expensive but not THAT expensive.

$120m BD2
$21m Silver Linings Playbook

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/en ... 0639.story

Considerably higher number for last two BD movies. I guess the actors would be milking out as much from the franchise and then again there is good action and some messed up CG work in this installment. The last two installments do look good but still considering the making they should have been made in less amounts.

Great number for SLP.

Strange that Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 cost that much when the movie looked much cheaper than New Moon and Eclipse.

Yeah, the film looks incredibly cheap at times.

Fun fact: Breaking Dawn Part 2 cost more to make than each of the Star Wars prequels, as well as each of the Lord of the Rings films.

There are so many movies that cost more than Star Wars prequels and LOTR films....something we call inflation

More mismanagement, actually. Or was Town & Country's $90 million budget due to "inflation"?

I am not saying that the budget was good but just to make fun of it saying that the other movies were made cheaper (which in fact are totally different) is not fair. There are one too many movies this year (aka John Carter) that will not make their budget back. This is not even close to it cause regardless of its high budget it will make more than that over OW itself.

I thought BD1 and BD2 were shot at the same time. So howcome this has a budget of $120m? Surely it has a budget of $0m because the budget was absorbed into the BD1 budget.

I'm pretty sure that a third of BD2's budget went to the three main actors...

KS, RP and TL got $18M $ for each movie. That's $54M for one movie just there + plus other people had to be paid too.

I doubt they got $18m each for the first one.

Phantom Menace's budget adjusts to $182m in today's dollars.

Revenge of the Sith's budget adjusts to $140m in today's dollars.

That's the earliest and latest release of the movies you mentioned.

So, no, it's a misinformed fact.

Though, I must say, ROTS used its budget much more wisely than today's blockbusters. From what I remember, the cheesiest shot is the Mace Windu face off. Most of it holds up. Phantom Menace's effects are mostly poor by today's standards.

Why are you adjusting it? You can't adjust an expediture like a production budget and compare it to a recent expenditure and say that the former cost more. That's ludicrous. BD2 did cost more. End of.

We might as well just say that all films made in 1950 cost more than BD2. It serves no purpose, and is just plain wrong. They didn't cost more at all.

Agreed it is tricky to compare two movies THIS far apart from release over their production budget. Star Wars prequels and LOTR films came about 8-9 years apart from BD2. It is not fair to compare those movies with BD2.

$120m LIFE OF PI

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/en ... 8507.story

FUCK! That is a lot. I imagined that Life of Pi was a relatively small production in terms of cost. I know that the boat scene looks a pretty high standard, but I didn't think it would be $120m high. I thought maybe it would be around $60m. They have got a lot riding on this. Should be able to at least "break even".

That is too high but then there were articles about this being $100m movie at THR so expected this budget. There are some water scenes and all but they should have constrained the budget somehow.

S'pose the green-screen is used for the entire movie with lovely effects everywhere and I'm told that shit ain't cheap. Which I am always baffled when EVERY movie uses it. If it' so expensive, don't use it, I prefer the old school non-CGI movies anyway.

Why say anything when you use inflation adjusted numbers only when it suits you?

Ever studied economics? It's simple. Sorry, if reality doesn't suit you.

On the contrary, it's much easier.

Next you'll be telling me that these days a house is worth more because it's nominal value is 1000x+ bigger.

You're Asian aren't you? Use common sense.

It is easy to compare two movies just by numbers but it is not apples to apples comparison. I highly doubt back in 2003 or 2005 Twilight movies would have been given $100m+ budget even when the benefits are big.

P.S. BK - How is my ethnicity going to help here? Enlighten me...please

You're commenting on movies as a fan, not an executive on the board of Lionsgate, so you don't need to use inflation-adjusted numbers. It's not as if you're calculating investment risk, in which case you'd be looking ahead, not back anyway. It's absolutely pointless to use adjusted numbers, and I've always had that opinion - I never use them. And inflation-adjusted numbers are precisely NOT reality, that's why when those calculation occur, they are bending time and economics to suit their situation, while ignoring all the other important factors that contribute towards why a film performs a certain way. You have the nerve to ask if I have studied economics? I have, and so I know not to use inflation adjustments for such futile means without incorporating all other factors.

$145m Rise of the Guardians
$65m Red Dawn

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/en ... ?track=rss

Red Dawn

Good for RotG.