Great budget for Frozen.

I always remember how Disney didn't know what to do with Tangled. The movie went over budget big time,had many director and story changes. Disney wanted to release it only to get some money back but they didn't expect any profits from this movie. And then it not only made profit for Disney but audience loved the movie.

LAT:
$22m Out of the Furnace

Reasonable

The sequel, if there ever is one, has to be called Into the Fire.

Expected budget for Out of Furnace.

LAT:
$225m HOBBIT 2

LAT:
$35m SAVING MR. BANKS
$25m MADEA XMAS

Good number. Assuming $100m for advertising (pulled that number from my butt but sounds about right) then $650M WW is the breakeven point.

I see $850-$925 in Hobbit 2's future.

Money will be made. dolla dolla billz ya'll...

Hobbit 2 will have good legs in OS markets this time so I believe $225m is fine but they could have finished this movie in $200m itself IMO.

Great for Banks, the trailers make the movie look more expensive like $40m-$50m budget.

Generic still GREAT for Madea, should do more on OW itself.

THR:
$50m Anchorman 2

Standard and expected budget for Anchorman. I agree the interesting part would be the marketing budget for this movie.

LAT confirms:

$50m Anchorman 2
$40m American Hustle
$35m Saving Mr. Banks
$80m Walking with Dinosaurs (but it's a TV series)

? Do you mean it looks like one or do you think it's a recut version of BBC documentary Walking with Dinosaurs? It has no connection to the TV series whatsoever. But it does look like a TV production. CGI is very ugly based on the trailer.

From what I understood it's a cut of the TV series - but I might be wrong...

It's not. It's an action adventure movie. While the documentary was exactly that, this one has a Disney-ish storyline about a dinosaur growing up and leading his herd.

It is interesting the dinosaurs' mouths don't move in the film. Which leads one to believe the idea to give them broadly comic voices courtesy of Justin Long and John Leguizamo came fairly late in the production.

The film feels like Disney's Dinosaur (live-action backdrops and all), but without the advantages of the novelty such a film had in 2000, Disney's still-pretty-high reputation at the time, or the fortune of opening in a nearly dead family market.

On the other hand, with Frozen's excellent legs so far, WWD may have trouble matching Yogi Bear's total.

It's similar to Disney's Dinosaur... except there's no possible way it's as good as that was.

Wow!!! That's really HIGH for WWD.

Great for the other three titles.

It seems Bale, Hanks, Ferrell, Carrel and Lawrence are all working for less this year.

LAT:

"at least $175m" 47 RONIN
$100m WOLF OF WALL STREET
$91m WALTER MITTY
$40m GRUDGE MATCH

47 Ronin mega bomb!

We have all known for at least a year 47 Ronin is a huge, huge financial gamble and could result in a John Carter/Jack the Giant Slayer type flop. You have to shiver a bit when you read "at least" there.

I am sure the budget is justified relative to how much it will earn worldwide, the Oscar nominations it will receive, etc., but The Wolf of Wall Street sure is expensive for a film which, as far as I can tell, is largely dialogue centric, set indoors, requires no major costume and production design since the story is contemporary, etc. Django Unchained and The Great Gatsby cost around the same, no?

I thought WOLF is set in the 1980/1990s?