|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jul 5, 2023 0:25:33 GMT -5
What the f*** is going on? How is everything now 300 million plus? This all feels like funny budgets like how You want gross vs net points. Like staff or equipment is shared costs over the same companies
I mean Jurassic Park budget was 60 million before inflation which is ruffly less then double in today's money and titanic the longest most expensive movie was 200 million at the time but that was an exception
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,538
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jul 5, 2023 3:42:33 GMT -5
It's even worse than I thought because I only recently found out the budgets you usually see don't include marketing and distribution.
Everything Everywhere All at Once being made for less than $20m highlighted how bloated many budgets are in comparison (obviously can't make every film the same way but still).
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Jul 5, 2023 7:16:47 GMT -5
I once read that the money Titanic made could rebuild a significant amount of countries-I can't imagine what the budget was then and what kind of money they sink into a Marvel movie now and I know this will never happen, but what if they were able to apply the budget or the money earned into going towards helping the economy.
|
|
|
Post by stoptheclocks on Jul 5, 2023 7:25:46 GMT -5
Tax writeoffs? Money laundering? It certainly seems odd that we're going through a time where every other big release is doing its bollocks and losing 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars. Does anyone ever get fired for these awful business decisions?
Feels like a major recalibration is required in the age where everyone is getting used to movies turning up on streaming services in a matter of weeks. It's like labels throwing money at artists and trying to make it back through album sales, that genie is out of the bottle.
|
|
chrom
Backup Wench
Master of the rare undecuple post
Posts: 84,713
|
Post by chrom on Jul 5, 2023 7:27:48 GMT -5
These extremely high budgets are making it impossible to make back the money.
Disney's last four films the past three months had a combined budget of over a billion with only GOTG thus far turning a profit.
Indiana Jones should not cost 250 million to make
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,290
|
Post by Push R Truth on Jul 5, 2023 10:49:46 GMT -5
One of the things I often think about is "see all those hundreds, sometimes thousands of names in the credits? Sure, some of them work a lot of different projects but for a lot of them this was their #1 job for a long ass time."
And that's not even getting into the big numbers like "we paid X million for one actor and this movie has 4 more that are higher paid", or "suits interfered and made sure something was outsourced to their buddy/cousin/shell company for 500% markup" or "We paid 40 million for superbowl advertising" or "this shot with 30 CGI effects isn't enough, we need at least 99 pieces of flair added in post production for each shot to meet our standard"
and I'm ignoring other massive costs like flying/housing everybody around for on-location filming or the coccaine/arbys budget for an actor.
|
|
Kalmia
King Koopa
Happy to be here
Posts: 11,679
|
Post by Kalmia on Jul 5, 2023 11:17:13 GMT -5
It's insane. Independence Day was made for $75 million and that still largely holds up. The newest Indiana Jones movie cost $295 million. Even allowing for inflation, that's an insane difference.
I know that movies often have more expensive and lengthier reshoots these days but even so, where does the money go? Many modern movies have swapped out practical effects for CGI but we know that the money isn't going to the CGI artists as they're notoriously underpaid and overworked.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Jul 5, 2023 11:20:14 GMT -5
So much effing CGI.
You would think computer effects would get cheaper over time, but they seem to have gotten way more expensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2023 11:40:27 GMT -5
Terrifier 2 was made on a 250k budget and has made 10mil domestically and 15mil worldwide.
There IMO is no reason other than there is some real shady shit goin on more than usual that movies are made for near 300mil nowadays.
|
|
Nr1Humanoid
Hank Scorpio
Is the #3 humanoid at best.
Posts: 5,484
Member is Online
|
Post by Nr1Humanoid on Jul 6, 2023 13:28:44 GMT -5
I am often surprised to learn the budget of a movie I just saw.
|
|
|
Post by ace on Jul 6, 2023 13:30:40 GMT -5
I hope Oppenheimer bombs just for the puns.
|
|
Kalmia
King Koopa
Happy to be here
Posts: 11,679
|
Post by Kalmia on Jul 6, 2023 14:15:45 GMT -5
I hope Oppenheimer bombs just for the puns. The puns would be funny. I hope Oppenheimer does well though. It's a $100 million movie with mainly practical effects that isn't a franchise or a remake. I think we need more of those, even if it's not a movie I personally care for. Plus, I want more movies with Cillian Murphy as the lead, lmao
|
|
salz4life
Grimlock
Prichard is a guy who gets that his job is to service his boss.
Posts: 13,967
|
Post by salz4life on Jul 6, 2023 14:51:15 GMT -5
I hope Oppenheimer bombs just for the puns. I usually enjoy these type of movies. I actually enjoyed Pearl Harbor because of the historical context.... sure the love story was corny as hell, but as long as it has to do with a historical event (even a "Hollywood" Historical event), I'll probably be fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyoldman on Jul 6, 2023 18:16:26 GMT -5
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of a movies budget and see where the money goes.
Actually, if you did see the budget breakdown for a movie it on probably be boring as f***
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jul 6, 2023 18:37:59 GMT -5
You would think computer effects would get cheaper over time, but they seem to have gotten way more expensive. The problem is the better effects get the more reliant studios get on them, which is what drives the costs up. Jurassic Park was mostly practical effects with CGI rounding off the rough edges. They had around 20 visual effects artists at ILM handling the CGI. The movie's budget was $63 million ($136 million adjusted for inflation). Jurassic World Dominion is 95% CGI, and had 449 VFX artists across six effects studios credited. It cost $265 million. While I think the CGI in JWD is actually pretty good, Jurassic Park still takes one big pile of shit all over it.
|
|
|
Post by JasonVoorhees1988 on Jul 6, 2023 19:08:28 GMT -5
Are practical effects that much more expensive?
With rare exceptions, the practical effects usually look way better.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jul 6, 2023 19:36:56 GMT -5
Are practical effects that much more expensive? With rare exceptions, the practical effects usually look way better. In almost all cases, practical is cheaper than digital, but the use of digital effects over practical really depends on a number of factors. CGI is safer. Stuntpeople aren't getting injured or killed if the really dangerous stuff is all done on the computer, and you can push the boundaries of what's possible far more when you go digital. There's also the convenience of CGI. If it turns out a big action scene isn't working out then you don't have to drag your film crew and actors back for reshoots. Granted, it's hell for the effects artists, but that's a whole other topic.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Jul 7, 2023 11:38:06 GMT -5
I do miss asking myself, "how did they do that?" back in the practical effect days.
|
|
pinja
Unicron
Posts: 2,998
|
Post by pinja on Jul 7, 2023 11:44:40 GMT -5
I do miss asking myself, "how did they do that?" back in the practical effect days. It got replaced by a whole lot of "Why did they do that?"
|
|
|
Post by Gremlin on Jul 7, 2023 12:44:29 GMT -5
Budgets for marketing is ridiculous these days. I read somewhere that the total spent on marketing for films was around 2.5 billion dollars in 2022.
|
|