Best Blu-ray Movie Deals


Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
Short Circuit 2 (Blu-ray)
$5.99
7 hrs ago
The Prestige 4K (Blu-ray)
$22.99
1 day ago
Rita Hayworth: Ultimate Collection (Blu-ray)
$18.99
5 hrs ago
The Golden Child (Blu-ray)
$16.99
15 hrs ago
John Wick: Chapters 1-3 4K (Blu-ray)
$25.60
 
Runaway Train (Blu-ray)
$19.99
18 hrs ago
Monster Hunter 4K (Blu-ray)
$24.99
 
Wonder Woman 1984 3D (Blu-ray)
$28.99
 
Supernatural: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$289.99
 
Neo Ultra Q (Blu-ray)
$8.99
16 hrs ago
Kuffs (Blu-ray)
$16.69
10 hrs ago
Krull (Blu-ray)
$5.99
6 hrs ago
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Movies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-19-2015, 09:18 PM   #41
dissention dissention is online now
Blu-ray Samurai
 
dissention's Avatar
 
Dec 2011
35
1405
201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BluRayTim View Post
Town & Country came out in 2001, not the late 1990s.
It took them three years to film that dog. It was pushed back a record 12 times.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2015, 10:00 PM   #42
levcore levcore is online now
Blu-ray Archduke
 
levcore's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Dryland
128
1854
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris_sc77 View Post
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
Some great examples there but I must disagree on John Carter, Jack the Giant Slayer and Exodus in particular. the first two have lots of heavy CG and are big productions whereas Exodus is a huge production with tons of lavish CG and hugely expensive sets and battle scenes.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Archedamian (10-09-2015)
Old 06-19-2015, 10:02 PM   #43
levcore levcore is online now
Blu-ray Archduke
 
levcore's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Dryland
128
1854
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike View Post
It's more than on the screen


Gigantic sets, expensive special effets, tons of extras......
Beat me to it mate. I agree totally. I would like to know just how much of The Lone Ranger's production budget went on the train finale, because that sequence is beyond humongous and absolutely spectacular.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2015, 10:12 PM   #44
pigmanjoe pigmanjoe is online now
Active Member
 
pigmanjoe's Avatar
 
Jul 2013
Space Coast, FL
5
856
269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buscemi View Post
I also never understood how Children of Men could have cost $80 million. Danny Boyle made 28 Days Later for $8 million and they have pretty much the same look in terms of showing the money.
Really? Children of Men has a six minute action take shot on film. That alone probably cost more than 28 Days Later. Boyle definitely made good use of funds, but I don't think Cuaron was wasteful. I love both films, but Children of Men, even on DVD, is much better looking.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
UltraMario9 (12-06-2016)
Old 06-19-2015, 10:18 PM   #45
willo007 willo007 is online now
Blu-ray Samurai
 
May 2011
601
5501
11
20
183
Default

Terminator 3:Rise of the Machines -->Production Budget: $200 million....and it looks like made for TV (not even made for Cable) movie!!
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
levcore (06-19-2015), UltraMario9 (12-06-2016)
Old 06-19-2015, 10:19 PM   #46
Buscemi Buscemi is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
Buscemi's Avatar
 
Aug 2013
2
3383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pigmanjoe View Post
Really? Children of Men has a six minute action take shot on film. That alone probably cost more than 28 Days Later. Boyle definitely made good use of funds, but I don't think Cuaron was wasteful. I love both films, but Children of Men, even on DVD, is much better looking.
They used to have long takes done on film for way less than $8 million. And Cuaron blew much of the budget on a camera system that had no practical use whatsoever on any other film (this was for what I remember some people online years ago calling "the obviously CGI ping pong ball scene").

Other than that, that movie could have been easily produced on a much smaller budget. There are hardly any big action sequences, most of the big stars' roles are glorified cameos (Michael Caine's final scene is pretty lame) and most of the feel is atmosphere. Did this really need to cost $80 million? You could go to some grimy council estates or depressed towns in North England or Scotland, film on handhelds and you've have the same effect on a fraction of the budget.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2015, 10:26 PM   #47
pigmanjoe pigmanjoe is online now
Active Member
 
pigmanjoe's Avatar
 
Jul 2013
Space Coast, FL
5
856
269
Default

I agree with you that it could have had a smaller budget, most movies can. I just don't see how they could have possibly made the same caliber of movie for under ten million. Without those action scenes, I don't think many people would even remember it today.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2015, 10:38 PM   #48
Impossible Impossible is offline
Banned
 
Mar 2010
3
Default

Social Network.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2015, 10:39 PM   #49
Impossible Impossible is offline
Banned
 
Mar 2010
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spawningblue View Post
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
It's called tax write offs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2015, 10:43 PM   #50
BladeRunner2007 BladeRunner2007 is online now
Blu-ray Baron
 
BladeRunner2007's Avatar
 
Oct 2009
Germany
2
874
3
Default

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Ben_UK (06-20-2015)
Old 06-20-2015, 06:44 AM   #51
Bonzi Bonzi is offline
Senior Member
 
Bonzi's Avatar
 
Nov 2011
22
1522
3
1
4
Default

Probably a minor example, but Intolerable Cruelty did not look like a 60 million-production (almost 80 mil adjusted!), especially considering that later on Coens managed to pull off No Country for Old Men for just 25 millions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 06:45 AM   #52
Tony208 Tony208 is online now
Blu-ray Prince
 
Tony208's Avatar
 
May 2010
NYC
226
517
33
557
Default

District 9 looks like it cost 5 times as much. $30m? How?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 07:27 AM   #53
KillDaWabbit KillDaWabbit is offline
Active Member
 
Dec 2011
80
432
55
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony208 View Post
District 9 looks like it cost 5 times as much. $30m? How?
Far from an expert, but I would guess shooting in (and using actors from) a location that has a standard of living far below the standard of living than that of the United States has something to do with it. Really only one city was used for the entire film, as opposed to something like Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol where they have to transport entire crews all across the globe for one picture.

A tidy production schedule and a smaller crew can also cut down on the costs big time.

Like I said, just guesses though. Neill Blomkamp did a great job bringing a picture of that quality in on the budget that he did though.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 07:43 AM   #54
mikesncc1701 mikesncc1701 is offline
Banned
 
Jan 2010
Jacksonville, FL
10
289
1693
763
814
1
36
Default

Definitely Blackhat. Now don't get me wrong, I loved this film way more than most but 70 million?! On what?! The only answer I can come up with is Hemsworth. Being as big and popular as he is had to have contributed to that insane amount for what we were given. From what I remember they actually shot on location but there were never any really HUGE set pieces that would have justified that kind of budget. Still love the final product but it worries me about Mann's future projects. It was a disastrous failure and I'm worried he won't be allowed that kind of freedom again.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 08:05 AM   #55
Deathbymonkeys Deathbymonkeys is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Deathbymonkeys's Avatar
 
Sep 2011
USA
377
28
269
Default

Avatar. 500 million on what?

Star trek and transformers both had way better graphics that year. (Not comenting on movie quality just graphics on screen).
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 08:05 AM   #56
Deathbymonkeys Deathbymonkeys is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Deathbymonkeys's Avatar
 
Sep 2011
USA
377
28
269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesncc1701 View Post
Definitely Blackhat. Now don't get me wrong, I loved this film way more than most but 70 million?! On what?! The only answer I can come up with is Hemsworth. Being as big and popular as he is had to have contributed to that insane amount for what we were given. From what I remember they actually shot on location but there were never any really HUGE set pieces that would have justified that kind of budget. Still love the final product but it worries me about Mann's future projects. It was a disastrous failure and I'm worried he won't be allowed that kind of freedom again.
Agreed on that i feel like this could have had a 20 million budget. Where did it go? Manns paycheck?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 08:42 AM   #57
Bonzi Bonzi is offline
Senior Member
 
Bonzi's Avatar
 
Nov 2011
22
1522
3
1
4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathbymonkeys View Post
Avatar. 500 million on what?

Star trek and transformers both had way better graphics that year. (Not comenting on movie quality just graphics on screen).
Avatar's budget was 237 million. A lot of money probably went into 3D.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 08:51 AM   #58
mikesncc1701 mikesncc1701 is offline
Banned
 
Jan 2010
Jacksonville, FL
10
289
1693
763
814
1
36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonzi View Post
Avatar's budget was 237 million. A lot of money probably went into 3D.
Not to mention they created an entirely new camera to shoot it. Avatar's budget, shitty as the film was, was at least used to invent something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathbymonkeys View Post
Agreed on that i feel like this could have had a 20 million budget. Where did it go? Manns paycheck?
I don't think Mann commands that much of a presence these days. I'm still sure most of it went to Hemsworth for his precious time outside of Marvel in hopes of selling the film in an advertising standpoint. Turned out to be a disaster but I did my part in seeing it and buying it. I think it's quite underrated actually. People seemed to have stereotyped it before even seeing it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 09:18 AM   #59
Coenskubrick Coenskubrick is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Apr 2015
3
498
Default

Eyes Wide Shut: $65 million.

Most everything Adam Sandler makes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2015, 12:31 PM   #60
L.J. L.J. is offline
Blu-ray Archduke
 
L.J.'s Avatar
 
Aug 2013
South Carolina
59
869
38
84
47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony208 View Post
District 9 looks like it cost 5 times as much. $30m? How?
A great movie that looks good. Maybe he got some tips from Carpenter.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Movies


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:03 PM.