Impressive budget for Emoji. AB is more of standard budget. Both should make money theatrically.

Did anyone say Tangerine?!

Well, at least the budget is okay-ish...

V:
$66m DARK TOWER

That's a phenomenal budget actually considering how expensive this movie could've been (or better said should've been).

That's whatI meant - it could have easily cost somewhere between $120m-$180m...

That's indeed a great budget for the movie. I guess that's the reason Sony is not pushing it hard, its not a high-value asset for them.

LAT:

$35m IT

Amazing budget. It could be profitable by Saturday morning!

I knew it wouldn't be much higher than $40M at most, but still holy shit is It going to be profitable for the studio. I bet it will make back everything by the end of the weekend.

High for a horror budget. They are typically low. But the bar for this is even higher than the average horror, so obviously it's all fine.

IT was never going to have an average horror budget because it's not your average horror story, it's also a coming of age tale, it's like the Harry Potter of horror. This requires a glossier production, and there are sequences that involve a lot of VFX.

And coming-of-age tales are notoriously costly to produce.

More so than horror. What it (heh) means is that the film needs an 'adventure' feel and can't get away with the haphazard style a lot of cheap horror manages to pull off because it fits the type of cheap scares and contained environments most horror films are set in. IT requires more scope, settings, more lush cinematography because of the type of story. You can't make IT into a first person camera or micro-budget 'Get Out' style horror film.

I knew what you meant. But I also disagree. For me, It having no stars is why it should have cost way less. Films have been made with all of those things you mention and cost less than $35m. It's all moot anyway because it's going to blast through its budget in a day, but I guess if Blum had produced it, it would have cost about $20m less, still have been as good (and probably scarier), and would blast through its budget within an hour.

It needs a lot of set building (the whole sewer building, the sewers - water tanks are not cheap and any set that needs running water less so) and on location filming (the woods, town shots etc.). That's where the money went and it's actually impressive they kept it that low.

Compare it to The Conjuring series ($20m and $40m budgets respectively) that only need one house to build or shoot in and have similar visual style to It and you do get that they kept the budget more than reasonable.

You can't compare the IT budget to other horror movies - first of all, it was years in development which costs a lot of money. And IT is based on a mega-bestseller, so Stephen King surely wants to be paid handsomely as well...

DLH:

$15m HOME AGAIN

I did a bit Googling and it seems even when Fukunaga was set to direct the budget was aimed at $30m. Considering that they never went past the script stage I don't think they wasted much money despite trying to make it for nearly a decade. It just seems they smartly budgeted It all this time.

It Returns will probably have double the budget. Warners will feel more at ease with spending more after it makes a killing at the BO, and adult actors cost more than kids.

I don't think that will be the case. The second part of the story is a bit weaker and I'm sure WB will want to keep the budget down as much as possible.

LAT:

$104m KINGSMAN 2
$54m AMERICAN MADE

Those both seem very sensible.

AM's also gotta be one of the cheapest Cruise films ever.

Decent for Kingsman 2 though I hope it was a bit more cheaper.

Good budget for American Made but it does looks cheap throughout.

Not even close. Films are more expensive now than they've ever been, and Cruise has a career spanning 40 years. In the 80s, his films would cost half of what American Made costs.

LAT:
$35m Foreigner
$12m Marshall
$5m Happy Deathday