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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by BluRayTim

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.

[levcore]

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

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.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

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.

[pigmanjoe]

Originally Posted by Buscemi

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.

[willo007]

Terminator 3:Rise of the Machines -->Production Budget: $200 million....and it looks like made for TV (not even made for Cable) movie!!

[Buscemi]

Originally Posted by pigmanjoe

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.

[pigmanjoe]

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.

[Impossible]

Social Network.

[Impossible]

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

It's called tax write offs.

[BladeRunner2007]

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

[Bonzi]

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.

[Tony208]

District 9 looks like it cost 5 times as much. $30m? How?

[KillDaWabbit]

Originally Posted by Tony208

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.

[mikesncc1701]

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.

[Deathbymonkeys]

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).

[Deathbymonkeys]

Originally Posted by mikesncc1701

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?

[Bonzi]

Originally Posted by Deathbymonkeys

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.

[mikesncc1701]

Originally Posted by Bonzi

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.

Originally Posted by Deathbymonkeys

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.

[Coenskubrick]

Eyes Wide Shut: $65 million.

Most everything Adam Sandler makes.

[L.J.]

Originally Posted by Tony208

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.