Big budgets but the money is NOT up on the screen!

[spawningblue]

Disney is famous for overspending, probably mostly on marketing.

John Carter $250 million
Lone Ranger $215 million
Tomorrowland $190 million
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time $200 million

[schan1269]

Originally Posted by levcore

What on earth!!!!! That's insane.

Pretty sure Ryan Phillippe got paid from this one...

[Thomas Guycott]

$17 million of The Invasion's $65 million budget went to Nicole Kidman's salary alone. Who knows what Daniel Craig was paid.

Edit: $10 million was also spent on reshoots.

[Buscemi]

I was looking further at big budgets and though it was a good remake, I must wonder how Adrian Lyne's remake of Lolita cost $62 million to make.

And I remembered that Roman Polanski's Carnage cost $25 million despite mostly taking place in one room.

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by spawningblue

Disney is famous for overspending, probably mostly on marketing.

John Carter $250 million
Lone Ranger $215 million
Tomorrowland $190 million
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time $200 million

Yep. The Money is not on screen in any of these films.
I dont understand how animated films cost so much as well. Just paying the hundreds of animators i guess???

other expensive movies where the money is NOT on screen:
MEN IN Black
Men in Black 2
Men IN Black 3
RIPD
Thor the Dark World
Godzilla(this is a big one. FIlm looked horrendous and very very cheap.)
47 Ronin (another big one. such a boring movie and horribly filmed and yet it cost almost $200 million . Carl Rinsch is one of the worst directors of all time and hope he never works again. And it doesnt look like he will get another movie anytime soon)
Blackhat
Red Dawn remake
After Earth
Jack the Giant Slayer
Exodus

[dissention]

Town & Country. $100 million for a late-nineties romantic comedy starring Warren Beatty? Christ alive, so ill-advised...

Aside from the stars, you see none of it on-screen.

EDIT: Buscemi beat me to it. Man, what a turkey of a film.

[Samus Aran]

Originally Posted by dissention

Town & Country. $100 million for a late-nineties romantic comedy starring Warren Beatty? Christ alive, so ill-advised...

Aside from the stars, you see none of it on-screen.

Beatty took forever to shoot, there were constant rewrites, a couple actors had other commitments so they had to put the movie on hiatus until they could bring everyone back together. Not really sure how a studio lets a movie production spiral like that. It's not like anyone in the movie was a $100 million budget draw to begin with.

[Tony208]

a lot of these absurd actor salaries were back when hollywood was star driven

now it's concept and franchises, $50m paydays are the exception

[GC Riot]

Superman Returns had that $270M budget, heh...
At least $10M of those were spent on that Krypton opening scene that didn't even make it into the film.

[NoFro]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

Yep. The Money is not on screen in any of these films.
I dont understand how animated films cost so much as well. Just paying the hundreds of animators i guess???

other expensive movies where the money is NOT on screen:
MEN IN Black
Men in Black 2
Men IN Black 3
RIPD
Thor the Dark World
Godzilla(this is a big one. FIlm looked horrendous and very very cheap.)
47 Ronin (another big one. such a boring movie and horribly filmed and yet it cost almost $200 million . Carl Rinsch is one of the worst directors of all time and hope he never works again. And it doesnt look like he will get another movie anytime soon)
Blackhat
Red Dawn remake
After Earth
Jack the Giant Slayer
Exodus

Wait what!?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

The Lone Ranger

It's more than on the screen

Originally Posted by spawningblue

Disney is famous for overspending, probably mostly on marketing.

John Carter $250 million
Lone Ranger $215 million
Tomorrowland $190 million
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time $200 million

Gigantic sets, expensive special effets, tons of extras......

[Buscemi]

Originally Posted by GC Riot

Superman Returns had that $270M budget, heh...
At least $10M of those were spent on that Krypton opening scene that didn't even make it into the film.

Much of this one's budget (reportedly $50 million) was spent on the aborted Superman Lives project (Superman: Flyby and the first attempt of Batman v. Superman also took up a bit of that $50 million). Since that became Superman Returns, it was counted in the budget.

Same reason why Tangled cost $260 million (pre-production included two unproduced concepts that nearly got produced).

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by GC Riot

Superman Returns had that $270M budget, heh...
At least $10M of those were spent on that Krypton opening scene that didn't even make it into the film.

$270m?! On that?

It wasn't a terrible film per se, but I'd never have guessed that it cost that much. There wasn't even a massive marquee star, aside from Spacey you might say, but I doubt he was paid silly money.

[master gandhi]

Cool topic.

It's crazy that some of those rom com types cost more than your average action movie.

I disagree with many of the spectacle/action films being mentioned because I feel you do usually see a lot of money on the screen, but this thread isn't about arguing as the OP stated. And even if many of those big budget spectacle films look good, it doesn't mean they should have cost as much as they did.

The bigger the budget, the bigger the risk for the studio to fail. I hate that. Lots of decent films have been deemed failures just because their budgets were too high.

Maybe Lucas and Spielberg were right when they predicted that Hollywood will have to minimize the amount of giant-sized budget films in the future. We'll see.

[BluRayTim]

Originally Posted by dissention

Town & Country. $100 million for a late-nineties romantic comedy starring Warren Beatty? Christ alive, so ill-advised...

Aside from the stars, you see none of it on-screen.

EDIT: Buscemi beat me to it. Man, what a turkey of a film.

Town & Country came out in 2001, not the late 1990s.

[Infernal King]

Quantum of Solace

The most expensive Bond film at the time but it looked cheap compared to many of the previous entries in the series.

[dgoswald]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Quantum of Solace

The most expensive Bond film at the time but it looked cheap compared to many of the previous entries in the series.

Some serious dollar must've been spent on the glass hotel in the climax... and its subsequent destruction. Unless it was smoke and mirrors and nothing really went up in flames.

[Buscemi]

Originally Posted by BluRayTim

Town & Country came out in 2001, not the late 1990s.

It was filmed in 1998 and 1999. The release kept getting pushed back because of constant re-editing and reshoots (and because New Line knew they had a bomb in their hands).

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

Much of this one's budget (reportedly $50 million) was spent on the aborted Superman Lives project (Superman: Flyby and the first attempt of Batman v. Superman also took up a bit of that $50 million). Since that became Superman Returns, it was counted in the budget.

Same reason why Tangled cost $260 million (pre-production included two unproduced concepts that nearly got produced).

Yep a lot of tax write offs and old versions paid for, the same reason Frozen cost a fortune.
They had to pay for older versions.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

The Lone Ranger

Completely disagree. It looks absolutely gorgeous and epic. It has lots of invisible VFX as well.
It certainly could have been cheaper, but that's Hollywood these days.

Amazing to think that the SW Prequels only cost about $115mil to make each. They look like they cost $500mil. That's how you do it.