anyone got any idea what the budget is for avp2
i think avp was about 70 million but they used alot of sets which may cost alot more than location shoots
It's still unknown and will probably stay that way. AvP's budget was $45m. AvP2 will probably be even lower.
I doubt it'd be lower. AvP did well enough for them to justify pumping at least that amount again into it.
Mind you, AvP2 seemed to be shot mostly on location, so they wouldn't have to build big temples. Which only cost $2 million anyway, but there you go.
I thought the budget for AVP was closer to 60 million? I know the advertising budget was 35 million, though.
Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2007, 07:53:17 AM
I doubt it'd be lower. AvP did well enough for them to justify pumping at least that amount again into it.
Mind you, AvP2 seemed to be shot mostly on location, so they wouldn't have to build big temples. Which only cost $2 million anyway, but there you go.
A lot of people say that but I'm convinced it'll be a lot lower. From what we've heard so far. Only one Predator. There was originally going to be five for AvP but that was cut down to three for budget reasons. Plus Henriksen would have cost quite a bit and the Queen. I just don't think Fox would give first-time directors a huge amount for a sequel.
wow i thought it was much higher then 60 million
Quote from: Darkness on Mar 07, 2007, 06:09:02 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2007, 07:53:17 AM
I doubt it'd be lower. AvP did well enough for them to justify pumping at least that amount again into it.
Mind you, AvP2 seemed to be shot mostly on location, so they wouldn't have to build big temples. Which only cost $2 million anyway, but there you go.
A lot of people say that but I'm convinced it'll be a lot lower. From what we've heard so far. Only one Predator. There was originally going to be five for AvP but that was cut down to three for budget reasons. Plus Henriksen would have cost quite a bit and the Queen. I just don't think Fox would give first-time directors a huge amount for a sequel.
Maybe, I'm not so sure. We just won't know till we know.
AvP's budget was $70mill with an advertising budget of $35mill. Go to www.the-numbers.com for this and other relevant info. It also has the release date for AvP2 as 25th december.
I'd be extremely surprised if AvP2's budget is anything like the first one, there is nothing to suggest it will be. Because of the actors and location it should mean more pred on alien action though.
Im pretty sure Anderson had less than they had for Alien 3, which was like 50 million, so 45 million could be right...
Quote from: stickaround on Mar 07, 2007, 08:01:45 PM
AvP's budget was $70mill with an advertising budget of $35mill. Go to www.the-numbers.com for this and other relevant info. It also has the release date for AvP2 as 25th december.
I'd be extremely surprised if AvP2's budget is anything like the first one, there is nothing to suggest it will be. Because of the actors and location it should mean more pred on alien action though.
Aye, I saw that as well, but other places give 60 as the number so I just took the lower of the two. Anyway, budget is probably the last thing that makes a great movie.
QuotePlus Henriksen would have cost quite a bit and the Queen.
Henriksen isn't exactly a-list. Or even b-list. Suspect the Queen might've cost more than Lance.
Probably true. I am sure the queen took a HUGE chunk of the budget.
For what it's worth, Peter Briggs had this to say on the subject of AvP's budget:
QuoteI actually can't bring myself to listen to the commentary on "A vs P", but I'll tell you this: Fox said the budget was 60 million. It wasn't. The budget was 38 million. Anderson got the job on the basis of bringing in a balance sheet to prove he could do the movie for that amount. Say what you will about him as a writer/director (and I have no respect for him on the former, and little on the latter), but the guy is extremely business-savvy from a production standpoint.
Wow, pulling a modern movie together with special effects and all for such a "paltry" sum really speaks volumes.
Gave me an entirely new respect for P.A.
He'd be much better suited as a production designer and producer than a writer or director. He knows how to get things cheap, and how to make things look great.
Yeah that DOA flick was all class... :-X
In fact based on EH I don't think he's a terrible director really - not great but not terrible. Just build an electrified barbed wire fence around his word processor.
^ betcha jamie pressley signs on for a sequel.... ::)
They were making a big deal about how local girl Holly Valance was making it in big budget Hollywood flicks - never mind the fact that it was shite.
Quote from: Uncanny Antman on Mar 08, 2007, 02:21:51 AM
For what it's worth, Peter Briggs had this to say on the subject of AvP's budget:
QuoteI actually can't bring myself to listen to the commentary on "A vs P", but I'll tell you this: Fox said the budget was 60 million. It wasn't. The budget was 38 million. Anderson got the job on the basis of bringing in a balance sheet to prove he could do the movie for that amount. Say what you will about him as a writer/director (and I have no respect for him on the former, and little on the latter), but the guy is extremely business-savvy from a production standpoint.
I really don't think Briggs has any place in criticizing Anderson's scriptwriting skills. Not to say Anderson is a good screenwriter, but I wouldn't exactly describe Briggs as talented either. Every single treatment and/or script he's submitted for films in the past have been rejected(just take a look at his IMDB profile), including: Freddy vs. Jason, Escape from L.A.(which i hear was absolutely awful), Spider-Man, X-Men, and the work he did on Hellboy was almost completely rewritten by Guillermo del Toro.
The only thing I genuinely liked about his AVP screenplay was the prologue, everything after that was pretty much a dull subpar rip-off of Randey Stradley's graphic novel.
Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2007, 10:22:45 PM
QuotePlus Henriksen would have cost quite a bit and the Queen.
Henriksen isn't exactly a-list. Or even b-list. Suspect the Queen might've cost more than Lance.
Henriksen would have cost the most out of all the actors, at least. I mean, if you've listened to the DVD commentary, why would Lance be so over the top in love with AvP and what Paul Anderson did? He did it for the money.
Lance makes quite a big deal out of how the film looks more than anything else, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who'd disagree with that. Even the most ardent detractors still generally concede that it's a visually interesting film.
Of course Lance did it for the money. It was a job. And as I said, he's not really high profile outside of genre films, so he would've been stupid to turn it down.
Well said.
The movie is interesting visually, I think everyone can agree on that for sure.
Quote from: Darkness on Mar 08, 2007, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: SM on Mar 07, 2007, 10:22:45 PM
QuotePlus Henriksen would have cost quite a bit and the Queen.
Henriksen isn't exactly a-list. Or even b-list. Suspect the Queen might've cost more than Lance.
Henriksen would have cost the most out of all the actors, at least. I mean, if you've listened to the DVD commentary, why would Lance be so over the top in love with AvP and what Paul Anderson did? He did it for the money.
Maybe. Even after in a film in an interview about his pottery, he was really bigging up his character in AvP. He might just really enjoy it.
Well, he said this at some convention last year:
QuoteWhen a buff asks about negative reaction to the disappointing ALIEN VS. PREDATOR, he laughs and replies, You know, of course, that I had nothing to do with any of this, right? I'm just a guy who takes a job, and some movies are alimony films and others ones are like, big money??
Sorta proves my point.
I know. I remember it. But what I said also proves my point. :P
ADI is doing the effects for AVP2, and they may still have a lot of the Props that were used for AVP functional. They could be stored in a Wherehouse.
At least the molds for the Aliens. They could use the old molds, and make some minor changes, without having to re-do the whole things.
Take the dome off the head, which may just simply un-clip any how for example.
The Animatronic Queen did have a non-battle damaged head as well, so IF there is a Queen in the movie, even just for one small scene, they could just use the Prop that was used in AVP.
Heck, they may even get away with using the 1/3rd scale Queen if she never gets a chance to leave the nest and gets blown up beforehand. They could easily do this as long as there are no humans, or anything else in the scene with her to give away the 1/3rd scale.
We would still have a lot of battles in the Town with Adult Aliens, including the showdown with the PredAlien.
The Pred costume may have to be re-made as it is not going to be overly muscular like in the first one, but they may have some reference material from previous films to cast from. Either way this should not cost too much. The could probably alter existing equipment to fit it, and customize it, and change colors with a new paint job etc... none of which should run too much cash.
The PredAlien would be the only new creature that HAS built from scratch. I think it should be bigger than a human-bred Alien, but still smaller than the Queen, so the PredAlien will not have to be gigantic. I was thinking about 10ft tall when standing errect, whereas the Queen is 16ft when hunched over like a T-Rex.
The Pred-Alien may be less expensive to build from scratch than would be a new Queen.
So there you go with the effects.
New Pred bodysuit.
Build the Predalien.
Everything else can be slightly altered pieces from existing Props.
I think those methods may be in use to save money.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong and this would in fact cost more.
Is it true that AvP 2's budget is only 25 million?
If the story, characters, and acting are all crap, then a movie like this can always fall back on good SFX and fight scenes. Now it looks like it won't even have THAT.
There's almost no incentive for me to see this now. It's obvious that Fox just doesn't care.
Quote from: superunknown on Jun 05, 2007, 09:41:28 PM
Is it true that AvP 2's budget is only 25 million?
If the story, characters, and acting are all crap, then a movie like this can always fall back on good SFX and fight scenes. Now it looks like it won't even have THAT.
There's almost no incentive for me to see this now. It's obvious that Fox just doesn't care.
We dont know avp2s budget, and we dont know if the acting is crap, hell, we dont know anything, but i suggest you wait for the trailer or you see the movie in december. ;)
What the ...
Low budget doesn't mean bad, m'kay? Equilibrium was done for 20 million and has some of the coolest fights I've ever seen. Admittedly they're not really the same as what you'd expect for AvP, but still. Low budget doesn't mean crap effects or fights, or anything like that.
Fox green lighting the flick with such a low budget (for a mainstream picture) tells me that Fox is testing the waters with this flick. If this movie flops, Fox won't make another Alien/Predator movie for along time. If it does well, I expect another AVP or an equally low budgeted sequel in either franchise.
EDIT: Just read SiL's post, its true. Even though the flick is in the low budget range, a lot of money could be devoted to just the effects/costume work/fight scenes opposed to high profile actors, complicated set construction, and other movie daring-do. Since the Strause Bros. said that the majority of the film is shot on location, that means they had to devote only a small portion of the budget to set construction. Unlike the first AVP which had a lot of set construction.
quote author=superunknown link=topic=2090.msg30012#msg30012 date=1181079688]
Is it true that AvP 2's budget is only 25 million?
If the story, characters, and acting are all crap, then a movie like this can always fall back on good SFX and fight scenes. Now it looks like it won't even have THAT.
There's almost no incentive for me to see this now. It's obvious that Fox just doesn't care.
[/quote]
I'd have to disagree with that. Just because the films got a low budget, it doesnt mean the story, the acting and the film itself are going to be crap. I have high hopes for this... ;)
We should be sort of thankful for the low budget, its the only reason that this one is ratet R, and i rather see an good 20 million avp then an 45 million crap movie that flops in all ways, well, not in all ways, it was good at the box office, and that was the only good thing about avp.
Okay let's be honest here: how many of you ACTUALLY think AvP 2 is going to have an intelligent, original script and good acting?
Seriously.
About the budget: you're right, budgets don't make for good movies. But they do make for good eye candy. Let's face it, the only thing AvP had going for it were the effects, which were decent.
What can be done with a budget of 25 million? We're not dealing with the likes of Danny Boyle here, who can take a small budget of 8 million and create a masterpiece like 28 Days Later, we're dealing with Shane Salerno and a movie that takes place in freakin Colorado.
AvP 2 looks like its going for the Slither/Tremors style feel...and that's not suitable for an Alien or Predator film.
mmmmmmm, I could live with $35 Mill, but $25 Mill on a picture like this? I'm not so sure now.
I think maybe thats what Darkness is on about, Pitch Black (i've mentioned this before)was made for about $23 Mill and was a solid Sci fi movie, but it had Vin Diesel to steal the show. We dont seem to have that luxury here, unless of course someone steps up to the plate.
$25 Million is about as Low as you could possibly get on a movie like this. In my opinion.
Quote from: superunknown on Jun 05, 2007, 10:05:01 PM
AvP 2 looks like its going for the Slither/Tremors style feel...and that's not suitable for an Alien or Predator film.
Interesting you bring that up. If the film does turn out like either of those films, Alien/Predator fans will probably hate the movie, but on the other hand people who praise films like Slither/Tremors may consider AVP2 a cult classic.
Pitch Black looked great, had some awesome effects and pretty solid acting for the most part. I think it would've worked even without Vin Diesel in it to steal the show.
And let's face it, good fights don't have to be expensive, even creature fights. It sounds like they're going for the MTV "So close and shaky you can't really see anything anyway" look for their fights, so it shouldn't be a problem.
just to add to my budget concerns, The Cave was made for $30 Million.......
Good movie, but again, if thats what $30 mill gets you.........?
Quote from: highlandpred on Jun 05, 2007, 10:08:17 PM
mmmmmmm, I could live with $35 Mill, but $25 Mill on a picture like this? I'm not so sure now.
I think maybe thats what Darkness is on about, Pitch Black (i've mentioned this before)was made for about $23 Mill and was a solid Sci fi movie, but it had Vin Diesel to steal the show. We dont seem to have that luxury here, unless of course someone steps up to the plate.
$25 Million is about as Low as you could possibly get on a movie like this. In my opinion.
Seriously, i think the budget is even lower then that and the production designer already said that this movie
is the smallest of the most in terms of scale, so i dont expect huge battles with smashing action like die hard4 or something, its a horror movie and its based on its basics, like Alien in 79, and you know what, i freaking like this, "pressure makes diamonds", that was always the concept of any alien or predator movie, no problem with that.
Quote from: SiL on Jun 05, 2007, 10:13:16 PM
Pitch Black looked great, had some awesome effects and pretty solid acting for the most part. I think it would've worked even without Vin Diesel in it to steal the show.
And let's face it, good fights don't have to be expensive, even creature fights. It sounds like they're going for the MTV "So close and shaky you can't really see anything anyway" look for their fights, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Its good to see your still up for it SIL, Usually your in the Sceptical camp, Well we're just going to have to sit tight til that trailer.....
Quote from: SiL on Jun 05, 2007, 10:13:16 PM
And let's face it, good fights don't have to be expensive, even creature fights. It sounds like they're going for the MTV "So close and shaky you can't really see anything anyway" look for their fights, so it shouldn't be a problem.
I would take the nausea-inducing quick cuts any day over the way the fight between Celtic and Grid was photographed and choreographed. That fight scene was nausea-inducing in a much worse way.
Budget means nothing. Solid filmaking will trump money any day. You can throw all kinds of monye at a project and it could still be crap, in fact, I would be more worried if AVP 2 had a huge budget. That being said, 25 million is low.
Where was it confirmed that 25 million is the actual budget?
All that's confirmed is that the budget is lower than AvP's. And AvP was already pretty low-budgeted, comparatively speaking. One of the crew also stated several times that the movie is small and low-budget.
I got the 25 million figure from wikipedia. Not always accurate, I know, but it's not impossible.
I mean, I'm not looking for a 200 million dollar movie like Pirates 3 or something, but I would have expected AT LEAST a budget of 40 million or so.
My only problem with no budget AvP movies is we wont get a proper Action star vs. Predator fight ever again. I'd rather see The Rock or Jason Statham hamming it up over OC rejects who deliver a mean Hamlet.
I don't really get all the budget worrying. Considering how many of my fave flicks of all time are quite low budget, I'm all for whatever works best for the project.
Aliens' budget was very low, even adjusted for inflation. Food for thought.
Quote from: Uncanny Antman on Jun 06, 2007, 10:17:18 AM
I don't really get all the budget worrying. Considering how many of my fave flicks of all time are quite low budget, I'm all for whatever works best for the project.
Aliens' budget was very low, even adjusted for inflation. Food for thought.
Operative word, but I get your point. Adjusted wise, Predator is $35 million or something like that.
Still, it seems FOX aren't expecting this to do over $100 million worldwide. In which case sequels will just get done on no budgets, which most likely means present day Earth. Which, might I add, is the worst friggin' idea ever.
Ture there is alot of really great low budget movies but I would like you to pick which one of those are a sci-fi flick?
The budget it needed to make the film look real. I dont know of any low budget film that needed to make suits and use computers for special effects. Thats why they were low budget i guess.
Fox should know it takes money to create a movie like avp.
Quote from: dudelove on Jun 06, 2007, 12:20:20 PM
Operative word, but I get your point.
I don't want to be argumentative (for a change ;) ) but there wasn't just one operative word. My entire post was a statement of opinion, nothing more. I told no one else what to think, only mentioned that the budgets on these films weren't exactly astronomical to begin with. :)
Well, Aliens was made from $18 million (with $1 million straight to Weaver), that's about $32 million adjusted. Also, it was much cheaper filming in the '80s, less rules, cheaper crew, more work for the same money than today. And Aliens is such a packed film, you can see every cent spent on the screen. So don't expect a miracle from $25 million in 2007.
i´m not expecting a miracle, i´m just expecting something better than anderson avp :) it isn´t that hard
if the budget is less than half that of AVP, and the trailer action/effects look this good,better than the whole of AVP, the brothers have done very well with the dollars they were given. any idea of budget yet ??
well they worked as visual effects supervisours so their great at what they do
To be honest, while it is still lackluster in the thrill department, the first AVP still has better visual effects than what we've seen in the trailer.
Quote from: Noir-Gojira on Sep 06, 2007, 01:57:57 AM
To be honest, while it is still lackluster in the thrill department, the first AVP still has better visual effects than what we've seen in the trailer.
we haven't sen enough to judge that completely
Note my final three words "in the trailer"
Quote from: Noir-Gojira on Sep 06, 2007, 02:03:37 AM
Note my final three words "in the trailer"
well that's true...but of course vs a trailer a movie would have better effects i think the movie will have some impressive effects...
That would be counter-productive seeing as it would be the trailer's job to show off some of the best parts of the movie, but yes, let's wait and see.
Quote from: Noir-Gojira on Sep 06, 2007, 02:11:56 AM
That would be counter-productive seeing as it would be the trailer's job to show off some of the best parts of the movie, but yes, let's wait and see.
i am sure the Bros have much up thier long sleaves
And remember the effects are not done yet...I sure with their background theyll have some cool stuff.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Eh, as long as nothing super camp happens, I'll deal with the effects. I don't dislike the alien trilogy for their now dated effects.
The first is my favorite movie. Bad ash head cut, exploding melon heads, and man in rubber suits cartwheeling outside the shuttle included.
Well as a hear the budget is 30-35 millions
The only good part in AVP was the pyramid flash back scene.
Quote from: Daweism on Sep 07, 2007, 10:00:39 AM
The only good part in AVP was the pyramid flash back scene.
Hated that scene it almost ruined the Predators...
Quote from: Noir-Gojira on Sep 06, 2007, 01:57:57 AM
To be honest, while it is still lackluster in the thrill department, the first AVP still has better visual effects than what we've seen in the trailer.
I have to totally disagree on you with that one. And i can safely say that no one here truly understand what they are saying about this. 1st of all in the entire AVP film i haven't noticed even 1 scene where i could see sub surface scattering or ray tracing. Almost every effect in AVP was rendered using V-ray especially the crappy predator cloaking displayed in AVP, which used a single layer physics phen material similar to Mental Ray. Which made the predator look like a glass rather than a cloaked. They mostly used refractions and displacement for that. The queen effect looked cheap because they only used camera FOV to give the depth. I've seen virtually no good effects in the film what so ever. All of them very poorly rendered.
The predator's vision was the worst effect i ever seen, creating a few layers over the original images and applying photo philters was so oblivious.
To sum up , the effects in AVP were very poor and cheap , and i know what i'm talking about to say this.
You can work wonders if you happen to own the same special effects company which is working on your own film.
For reference, look at what Lucas did with ILM and a certain recent trilogy of prequels. :) It's just a matter of shifting money from one pocket to the other.
The only digital effects I was not able to accept really were some of the shots of the pred-ship, they looked a little bit unfinished, everything else was absolutely acceptable, the CGI facehuggers, the ship blazing through the atmosphere down to earth(The shot behind the father and son) and some of it was downright impressive, like the CGI tails and mouth strikes(at least I think they were) in the scene of Wolf holding to aliens back at the same time, and the guy's face melting after the acid splatters on it, again, those were completely great to me.
and yes, AVP had some pretty good CGI effects, some shots I thought were very good, and others not so much, but this film looks to have effects that are on par, if not better, and for a lower budget
and the Strause Bros said they still have a lot of work ahead of them, post production wise I'm assuming, because Colin referred to an effects shot when he said that.
and its only confirmed that the budget was less then 45 million(the production budget of AVP) not 30 million, and not 35 million, and I personally don't think this could have been pulled off with less then 20 million
so it could be 20-29 million, 31-34 million, or 36-44 million, and seeing as the lowness of the budget was mentioned a few times, I think its likely 20-29 million, although there is no problem with that, that makes it easier for the film to turn a profit, and it just makes the overall movie more impressive, the less this amazing film was made for, the more amazing it is that it turns out so good.
I don't see why the Strause Bros or Fox are so shy about announcing the budget, I mean, most people love the trailer, and are looking forward to this film, why does it matter what the budget is?
Well the effects should look great they were visaul effects super visors!!!! for like 300 and the last matrix i think
Who cares about the budget, the movie looks great.
Special effects don't matter (The story does).
Quote from: Ratchetcomand on Sep 07, 2007, 08:24:34 PM
Special effects don't matter (The story does).
watch IT Great movie till the horrible last monster ruins the mood
Quote from: Ratchetcomand on Sep 07, 2007, 08:24:34 PM
Special effects don't matter (The story does).
but SFX do help
Quote from: vortep on Sep 07, 2007, 09:45:14 AM
Well as a hear the budget is 30-35 millions
lol.
I mean, first off, why don't they just release the budget for this film? is it going to hurt really, most love the trailer, and I doubt there are those out there who are like 'if the budget is less then 35 million, I'll never see this movie'
So why don't they just tell us the budget? I won't judge the film, and I doubt too many others will either, off of just its budget, most people will judge it by the trailers, and what they see in them.
also, do you think they aren't announcing it because of how low it might be? I mean, we know is under 45 million, is/was considered quite low by some of the people involved in the film, but the trailer shows off some pretty impressive visuals that indicate a decent budget, but then again, the way the money was spent can really effect how it all works out.
I say $25-28 million
The budget's definitley the lowest out of all the A/P/AvP movies...
I doubt it's anyplace close to Anderson's film. What you don't seem to take into consideration, though, is that the moment they announce the price tag for this movie people will undoubtedly start with the bad AVP vibe they're trying to ignore. If you think Wolf facial scarring issues are huge, wait until the budget for this film is tallied.
Actually the Brothers can do wonders with a low budget. I'll keep you to that comment when the movie comes out. :-\
The film looks bigger than the first one though.
Quote from: Pvt. Hicks on Sep 15, 2007, 12:03:04 AM
Actually the Brothers can do wonders with a low budget. I'll keep you to that comment when the movie comes out. :-\
Am I saying they can't do amazing things? No. What I'm saying is that people who already feel the effects are too rubbery are going to be in an uproar. Never said I was part of them, did I?
I say about $45 million and its not as big as the first one the first was $60 million this one is lower.
According to AVP galaxy, the 1 AVP film was $45 million, so it may be a lot less than that, maybe 3o something million :-\
My mistake, then I wonder why FOX trusts this film is one of its big guns for this year and it has a low budget.
They say it because 1) saying it sucks won't draw viewers and 2) you can still have some damn good movies with mediocre budgets.
I read somewhere that FOX gives the alien and predator small budgets so if they flop the studio wont loose any real money.
Wow shows how much FOX cares about the franchises.
They don't, that's the point in its entirety. The primary function of any business is to make money. If a product happens go garner a few fans along they way, then yippy-skippy, extra sales potential.
Quote from: War Wager on Sep 14, 2007, 10:20:06 PM
The budget's definitley the lowest out of all the A/P/AvP movies...
even the first alien film? Now that can't be true. As good as that movie is and remains a classic, the special effects were all on a really low budget for it.
You actually thought Fox cares about their franchises?
No
If Twentieth Century Fox was as interested in these franchises as Rothman makes it sound in interviews, the AVP team-up and Gala-cloud disgrace would have never happened. Ironically, they get in the way of creativity and intervene with some of the worst requests imaginable for the film.
It's not our business to know the budget for the film.... why would we need it anyway?!
If fox makes money there happy
Quote from: ballzanya on Sep 15, 2007, 12:24:50 AM
Quote from: War Wager on Sep 14, 2007, 10:20:06 PM
The budget's definitley the lowest out of all the A/P/AvP movies...
even the first alien film? Now that can't be true. As good as that movie is and remains a classic, the special effects were all on a really low budget for it.
From memory, the first alien and predator films cost roughly $18 million.
Predator
Budget: 18 million
Gross revenue: 60 million
Alien only had 8.4 million, which is about 25 million these days.
Some of the best movies cost 10-35 million to make. The Terminator cost as much as the opening sequence in T2. Jim Cameron had to use his own money to pay for the robot arm that cut through Ripley's shuttle door in Aliens.
thanks for all of the opinions, and the only reason I want to know the budget is because that way we will be able to gauge if the film was a success, and if we might be getting another Predator, Alien, or AVP film because of it, if the film makes 100 million, on a budget of like 38, thats pretty good, but not great, but if the film makes 100 million on a budget of 20-25 million, thats much better, because studios only keep roughly 55% of the worldwide gross, so if a movie costs 10 million more then another, it needs to make nearly 20 million more then it be have the same amount of profitability(spelling?)
So if this film costs, say 25 million, we know it doesnt need to necessarily match AVP's gross for Fox to be willing to give us another one.
it doesn't matter what the budget it really to me, it justs helps me sort of anticipate how well the movie needs to do.
personally, going from the trailer, this movie looks like it easily could have cost more then the first film, but it certainly seemed like the Strause Bros spent the money and everything the right way, to get the most bang for their buck.
Things I noticed is that they used pre-vis and storyboards to pre-edit a good portion of the film before shooting, that way, they only end up filming shots and scenes that are likely to be in the film, instead of wasting time filming angles and what not that they won't end up using anyway.
They also saved about 75% of the blood to be done digitally in Post, because like they said, that allows them to film more stuff, instead of waiting for the blood drenched sets to be cleaned up, which can take up to an hour, so again, they have more time for actually filming, and time is money.
And after that, they made sure to pretty much get a final edit on the film, deciding what would and wouldnt be in the film, before digital effects work and scoring really began, again, that way, the effects guys and Brian Tyler wouldn't waste time doing digital effects, or scoring, for scenes that ended up not being in the film, meaning they spent time on stuff that would almost definately be in the movie, and time is money.
So basically, the Strause Bros knew how to manage their budget, and it looks like they did it wonderfully.
I think Anderson did a better job. His movie looks really really expensive with the size of the sets. AvP II looks really really cheap.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 15, 2007, 08:36:56 PM
I think Anderson did a better job. His movie looks really really expensive with the size of the sets. AvP II looks really really cheap.
Yeah but that's it. The sets are what made that movie somewhat watchable.
AvP:R has smaller sets and a lot more action and story going on.
At least AvP didn't look like it had a low budget.
No it didn't look low budget.
To tell you guys before the trailer when we where have only the one production still i was thinking that will be verry bad movie with only about 30 millions.then i saw the trailer and must say.Dont look how mutch is the money,if the bros know how to use it they will not have problems!
PS:Cloverfield is 30 million budget and look what kind of effectts they have in the trailer!
That's because they used a cheap camera, and no-names. So that 30 million went to SFX.
i say there is no budget ;D
Quote from: vortep on Sep 15, 2007, 08:52:05 PM
To tell you guys before the trailer when we where have only the one production still i was thinking that will be verry bad movie with only about 30 millions.then i saw the trailer and must say.Dont look how mutch is the money,if the bros know how to use it they will not have problems!
PS:Cloverfield is 30 million budget and look what kind of effectts they have in the trailer!
When i saw the trailer i think the budget is much more than 35 million. Visually the trailer looks beautifull and far way better than the AvP. The film look better than the whole AvP.
Quote from: csutkakoma on Sep 15, 2007, 09:10:13 PM
Quote from: vortep on Sep 15, 2007, 08:52:05 PM
To tell you guys before the trailer when we where have only the one production still i was thinking that will be verry bad movie with only about 30 millions.then i saw the trailer and must say.Dont look how mutch is the money,if the bros know how to use it they will not have problems!
PS:Cloverfield is 30 million budget and look what kind of effectts they have in the trailer!
When i saw the trailer i think the budget is much more than 35 million. Visually the trailer looks beautifull and far way better than the AvP. The film look better than the whole AvP.
cloverfield has a tralier lol
Quote from: csutkakoma on Sep 15, 2007, 09:10:13 PM
Quote from: vortep on Sep 15, 2007, 08:52:05 PM
To tell you guys before the trailer when we where have only the one production still i was thinking that will be verry bad movie with only about 30 millions.then i saw the trailer and must say.Dont look how mutch is the money,if the bros know how to use it they will not have problems!
PS:Cloverfield is 30 million budget and look what kind of effectts they have in the trailer!
When i saw the trailer i think the budget is much more than 35 million. Visually the trailer looks beautifull and far way better than the AvP. The film look better than the whole AvP.
Yes i totatly agree!
Quote from: Major Alan Schaefer on Sep 15, 2007, 09:12:14 PM
Quote from: csutkakoma on Sep 15, 2007, 09:10:13 PM
Quote from: vortep on Sep 15, 2007, 08:52:05 PM
To tell you guys before the trailer when we where have only the one production still i was thinking that will be verry bad movie with only about 30 millions.then i saw the trailer and must say.Dont look how mutch is the money,if the bros know how to use it they will not have problems!
PS:Cloverfield is 30 million budget and look what kind of effectts they have in the trailer!
When i saw the trailer i think the budget is much more than 35 million. Visually the trailer looks beautifull and far way better than the AvP. The film look better than the whole AvP.
cloverfield has a tralier lol
Well yeah form month's ago!?!
ah the one with really bad camera right...saw that one
I think the budget is $52 million.
Quote from: Pvt. Hicks on Sep 15, 2007, 09:02:28 PM
That's because they used a cheap camera, and no-names. So that 30 million went to SFX.
AvP 2 is only half way there, then.
Quote from: Pvt. Hicks on Sep 15, 2007, 09:02:28 PM
That's because they used a cheap camera, and no-names. So that 30 million went to SFX.
Well, the cheap camera movie with the no-names gives me more hope on the fronts of storyline and acting than anything in the AvP: R trailer. I don't know about you, but that's concerning. The worst thing would be if it's both better than this film and made on a lower budget.
Cloverfield is understanably lower budget, but actually, they said only about half of its 30 million budget went to visual effects, but since that movie is made on a lower quality visual standard, the effects don't need to be a convincing, because they aren't being shown under the scrutiny of HD cameras or anything like that.
and honestly, I thought AVP looked like it could have cost a bit more then 45 million, but really, the only thing that shows it are the sets, the actors are pretty much nobodies I had never heard of before that film, there aren't any inventive cool deaths that would punch numbers up, hell, there are hardly any deaths in that film on screen at all, the predators' armor, weapons and faces looked fake in some situations and for the latter, just plain fake all around, there wasn't much in that film that made me think it should cost anything more then about 45-50 million dollars
but AVP-R looks that as well, I mean, the setting doesn't look very expensive, but just some of the things it shows in the trailer, those big effects shots, the predator ship flying through space and crashing to earth, those digital facehuggers, the CGI alien tails and mouth strikes, all of those deaths with apparently digital blood.
It looks like it could easily be around a 50 million dollar budget, when its confirmed to not just be under 45 million, but quite low all around.
but again, if the films turns out to have like a 40 million dollar budget, it'll look about right, but if we are talking 25 million dollar budget, then thats down right impressive, considering that very few of those shots in the trailer were final quality, and considering the higher amount of action and creatures that will be in this film, as well as all of those crazy super bloody deaths
i just saw the previous avp and i thought the visuals werent that bad as i first thought. it was actually pretty good, infact it looked much more realistic than the avpr trailer we saw. avp r aliens look too rubery and we never got to see the full body so i 'm guessing these guys spent less than 30 million this time around.
I'm guessing at about maybe 20 to 15 million, maybe even 30 to 20 million at the highest
xenomorph, very few shots in the Requiem trailer are final quality, so the digital effects at least will be better in the finished film
and the aliens aren't seen in full body in the trailer because its a trailer, the director's have commented several times that there are instances where they used CGI to show a fully body alien
they can't show us everything in the trailer
AVP1 have 60 mill. budet.
AVP2 fink 45-50 mill.
Than less, than better.
box office mojo is often very incorrect with their budget info, it may have been 60 million with advertising, but advertising is often just kept seperate from the actual budget, the production budget was 45 million, less then the budget for Alien 3, Paul Anderson confirmed this himself
AVP-R has a budget less then AVP's, and it has been referred to several times as quite low, so its not unreasonable to expect it to definately be lower then 40 million, probably lower then 35-38 million, and easily in the 25-30 million.
box office mojo is like the only place out there who has the AVP budget listed as 60 million, almost every other site has 45 million, and they are right.
AVP-Rs budget certainly isn't 40-50 million
Quote from: Docta Jekyll on Sep 16, 2007, 09:05:06 AM
box office mojo is often very incorrect with their budget info, it may have been 60 million with advertising, but advertising is often just kept seperate from the actual budget, the production budget was 45 million, less then the budget for Alien 3, Paul Anderson confirmed this himself
AVP-R has a budget less then AVP's, and it has been referred to several times as quite low, so its not unreasonable to expect it to definately be lower then 40 million, probably lower then 35-38 million, and easily in the 25-30 million.
box office mojo is like the only place out there who has the AVP budget listed as 60 million, almost every other site has 45 million, and they are right.
AVP-Rs budget certainly isn't 40-50 million
I fink box office mojo is the best by budget.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_vs._Predator_%28film%29
http://www.kinopoisk.ru/level/1/film/41949/
yeah, thats why they have Superman Returns at a 270 million dollar budget, and X Men: the last stand at a 210 million dollar budget, for those films, and what was in them, those are astronomical budgets, while the more reported budgets are 204 for SR, and about 168 for XM:TLS, which are much more believable
those films were basically bombs if they both costed that much, and the same goes for T3, which had a budget of 187 million, grossed 422, yet BOM has it listed as 200 million, if it was 200 million, how could the studios consider it a success? but they do, because the budget was only 187 million
studios only keep 55% of the worldwide gross, so a film costing 200 million, and grossing 422, well, you do the math.
it seems like for almost every film, BOM has a higher budget, and we know their AVP info is wrong, because its known the budget for Alien 3 was 50 million, and in the audio commentary for AVP, Anderson says his budger was smaller then Alien 3's, and the 45 million dollar budget corraborates with that, so there you go.
One thing i'm curoius about is...if the first one made so much money why did they lower the budget...the only people who complained were fans...so would that mean they lowered it because of fans?
They knew it was shit. Even the general public hated it. Making a sequel to a shit movie is really risky.
Quote from: Pvt. Hicks on Sep 16, 2007, 09:30:51 PM
They knew it was shit. Even the general public hated it. Making a sequel to a shit movie is really risky.
well that is true but it made alot of money sure the genreal didn't love it but it did enough to make alot
That's why they got slapped in the face with the F4 franchise. Not so much with LFODH because that movie was naturally action-oriented, but with ROTSS they got a dash of cold water when they realized that they made a movie more expensive than the first for a gross that was even smaller than the aforementioned. I think the suits are finally realizing that if they don't want to see their films slide out of the BO race, they're going to have to start making quality films. The problem is that studio suits seldom know what these franchises are about to so much as tell what qualifes as good quality cinema. It's just "sign here, verify this."
yea.... what is LFODH and ROTSS i think really hope this on is accepted and thought as great so they can get a great budget and in space
Live Free Or Die Hard, and Rise Of The Silver Surfer, the 2nd Fantastic Four
but yeah, I nocticed that too, FF2 cost more, made less, thats what they deserve
but yes, there are plenty of reasons for having the budget of AVP-R being low, first and foremost, the first, although it made a lot of money because people saw it thinking it would be good, was generall hated, and those who didn't hate it had a lot of complaints
so doing a seqeul, they knew that it would be likely that not as many people would see it, so they spent less on it
also, the rating for the first was PG-13, which gives it a wider audiance, giving it more of a chance to make more money, whereas this is R, which narrows the amount of people that will see it a bit.
so there you go, Fox wasn't willing to take a risk, they figured the odds were stacked against it to make as much as the first, so they figured to cut their losses, they would minimize the budget, but allow the film to be R rated, to please the fans
yea looks that way... i liked LFODH defantly not the best but it was good also i think that this movie has to do good and be accepted greatly beacause if it's not the budget will be...bad
The greenlighting of this film will forever be a mystery to me. I like the concept, but the paradox of making it R-rated and then giving it a lower budget to run the risk of effects even worse than what we saw in AvP that will undoubtedly make the fights the public wants smaller in scale just boggles the mind. It's like telling your child you want he or she to do well in school and then grounding them when they come home with an A.
Why is everyone complaining about the Budget? Just because the movie has a low budget that dons't mean it woun't be good. Movies like Psycho (The 1960 version), The Terminator and Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film) both had a low budget but they where amazing movies. Special effects don't make a movie good, the story does.
Quote from: Ratchetcomand on Nov 20, 2007, 07:10:41 PM
Why is everyone complaining about the Budget? Just because the movie has a low budget that dons't mean it woun't be good. Movies like Psycho (The 1960 version), The Terminator and Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film) both had a low budget but they where amazing movies. Special effects don't make a movie good, the story does.
Giving AVP R a tight budget tell us Fox doesn't give a damn.
"Special effects don't make a movie good, the story does."
That's true, except many people feel that like the previous 3 Alien films, Fox is not giving the directors the proper funds to do the creatures justice. Older films cost less because the dollar has been greatly inflated since then, and in addition, modern special effects are quite expensive. Ever since Alien 3, Fox has been very half-assed about doling out enough cash to complete the effects and make them look as good as possible, and/or to create the best sets, props, and action scenes possible, all of which cost money. So instead of actually giving the directors enough money to live up to the two stars of the film, we have crappy-looking creatures, shit production design and one of the worst locations I've ever seen for a monster movie. To be honest, any film that truly exploits these characters to their fullest and shows us what they can really do would cost much more than Requiem appears to.
The reasson why Colin Strause is makeing the movie low budget because they what it to be like the old alien and predators movies. And besides AVPR is not one of those movies with a huge budget and has tons of Special effects.
The problem I have with lower budgets is that it seems to encourage cheap use of CGI. When you listen to some of the commentary and watch the behind the scenes stuff on ALIEN for example, it's amazing how cheaply done some of the effects were and what materials were used to design sets and props etc. You just don't seem to see the same ingenuity these days, because there are easy substitutes available.
I'm not thrilled about the small budget. However, one hope I have is that the financial limitations forced the crew to be more creative to get everything they could from the budget.
See: Alien costumes.
See also: Overuse of CGI gore.
and don't forget the actors...
Do anybody know how mutch the budget is for Avp R?
40/45 milion
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/index.php?subaction=showcomments&id=1193549285&archive=&start_from=&ucat=10&
thank you :)
Alien 3 was made 15 years ago and it still cost more to make than AvP-R. Alien 3 cost $55 million, AvP-R cost $40 million.
That's a problem.
Alien Resurrection cost $70 million.
Now those aren't HUGE budgets, like Spielberg/Lucas/Bruckheimer/Bay budgets, but they are high enough to give the films a true Sci Fi feel.
We've had multiple interviews with crew members talking about how restricted their ideas were with the budget, like the guys desigining the Predator ship. When crew members keep mentioning a low budget and how it impedes their work, it's a problem.
I was just wondering if anyone new the true budget to the movie ppl have been saying it was less then AVP but i read somewhere it was 40 mil
Quote from: Dragon-Pred on Dec 18, 2007, 08:18:31 PM
I was just wondering if anyone new the true budget to the movie ppl have been saying it was less then AVP but i read somewhere it was 40 mil
Yeah, I read that too, I think on Wikipedia, not sure if it's true though. Is it? :) ???
Quote from: TheUrbanPredator on Dec 18, 2007, 08:33:09 PM
Quote from: Dragon-Pred on Dec 18, 2007, 08:18:31 PM
I was just wondering if anyone new the true budget to the movie ppl have been saying it was less then AVP but i read somewhere it was 40 mil
Yeah, I read that too, I think on Wikipedia, not sure if it's true though. Is it? :) ???
Well if it is then that is not technically a small budget i mean AVP was 45mil and everyone says that was a high udget movie but if this is small budget i dnt see how
Wikipedia is not necessarily the most accurate source of information.
I haven't seen the budget anywhere else but on Wikipedia and you can't always trust that website.
I say the next time Colin comes around, we ask him. Although I doubt he'll answer about finances of the movie. Unless he gives general answers like, Not Enough.
I'm still convinced AvP had a budget of 60 million. I heard the budget for this one, AvP-R, was in the range of 40-45 million which would be less than 60 million.
I read somewhere could have been at that crap hole ppl call planet avp :S that this movie has a high budget one of there reporters said while interviewing someone or somethign!
Quote from: Foundationman2 on Dec 18, 2007, 08:48:16 PM
Unless he gives general answers like, Not Enough.
That sounds more likely. :D
Budget of 40 mil is reasonab;e considering the setting is well alrdy there
and 60 mil? rly? ??? This website itself says 45 mil but then again...
I thought it was 50.
What every the budget was, it was nowhere near enough! An AVP movie needs a budget over 100 million! Does anyone know tha budget for the original Alien + PRedator movies?
predator was 60 million if im right..
I'm pretty sure that Alien as around 8.5-11 million.
I doubt Predator had a budget of 60 million, i very much do.
---- Budgets ----
Alien - $11 million ($32 million with inflation) - $104 Million World Wide ($310 Million with inflation)
Predator - $15 million ($26 million with inflation) - $98 Million World Wide ($173 Million with inflation)
Alien Vs. Predator - $60 million ($64 million with inflation) - $171 Million World Wide ($182 Million with inflation)
Quote from: Spidey3121 on Dec 19, 2007, 03:34:18 AM
I'm pretty sure that Alien as around 8.5-11 million.
I doubt Predator had a budget of 60 million, i very much do.
Yeah they didn't have to blow up that much shit!
It's very expencive for CGI yea? probably where most of budget went
Alien was 8.4 and Predator was 18.
What about the others (Aliens, ALien 3, Alien R and PRed 2)?
40 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_vs._Predator:_Requiem
http://www.kinopoisk.ru/level/1/film/251878/
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/avp-movies/avp-requiem/
Just read the comment what Colin put and he said AvP-R cost half than the first one with marketing, well the first one had a budget of 60 million, If im right 30 million is a pretty low budget. Was there any big sets made from this too?
Reports have never been conclusive as to what the actual budget for this film is although it has always been estimated around 40 million. Whether the original film had a budget of 60 million in another thing that seems to be debate as some people place it as low as 45 million (i think it's listed on this site as 45 mil...). Fox really is cheap if the budget was only 30 million for this film.
Yea 30-40 million sounds bout right...
:o I cant believe this much money is considered low budget film making
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 08:52:14 PM
:o I cant believe this much money is considered low budget film making
it is now days you take a look at what other big movie cost, Aliens was 18 million in 86 i dont know what it would now with inflation but i bet more than 30 million and Aliens budget was low.
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 08:52:14 PM
:o I cant believe this much money is considered low budget film making
spider-man 3 was 258 million.
Quote from: predator42 on Jan 15, 2008, 09:04:51 PM
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 08:52:14 PM
:o I cant believe this much money is considered low budget film making
spider-man 3 was 258 million.
Well that was big waste :(
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 09:06:01 PM
spider-man 3 was 258 million.
Well that was big waste :(
[/quote]
You are right about that Stuntman Mike. 8)
Quote from: KARHAN on Jan 15, 2008, 09:16:08 PM
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 09:06:01 PM
spider-man 3 was 258 million.
Well that was big waste :(
You are right about that Stuntman Mike. 8)
[/quote]
Um thats not stuntman mike :-\ It's severen from near dark :)
Quote from: shakermakerman on Jan 15, 2008, 08:38:08 PM
Just read the comment what Collin put and he said AvP-R cost half than the first one with marketing, well the first one had a budget of 60 million, If im right 30 million is a pretty low budget. Was there any big sets made from this too?
colin said the hive was the most expensive set to make
Quote from: shakermakerman on Jan 15, 2008, 08:38:08 PM
Just read the comment what Colin put and he said AvP-R cost half than the first one with marketing, well the first one had a budget of 60 million, If im right 30 million is a pretty low budget. Was there any big sets made from this too?
I remember Colin always said the budget is
under 40 million...so I don't think it was as low as 30 million flat, probably around 35 to 38 million I suppose...anyways it's made 93 million worldwide and the figure is rising (it hasn't even been released in the UK yet!)
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 09:17:23 PM
Quote from: KARHAN on Jan 15, 2008, 09:16:08 PM
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 09:06:01 PM
spider-man 3 was 258 million.
Well that was big waste :(
You are right about that Stuntman Mike. 8)
Um thats not stuntman mike :-\ It's severen from near dark :)
[/quote]
Well then, i apologize.
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 09:17:23 PM
Quote from: KARHAN on Jan 15, 2008, 09:16:08 PM
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 09:06:01 PM
spider-man 3 was 258 million.
Well that was big waste :(
You are right about that Stuntman Mike. 8)
Quote
Um thats not stuntman mike :-\ It's severen from near dark :)
...and that movie rocks!
Back to the budget, considering Uwe Boll manages to get DOUBLE that in budget, I'd say in comparison the Strauses really did do a lot with the money and managed to make a watchable film. 30 million is very low, and I just can't believe Fox is so stingy on funding for it's (arguably) most famous sci-fi franchises (Aliens and Predator).
That budget pales in comparison to the $258 mil budget for Spiderman 3 and even the $150 mil for Transformers.
With all that said, I think a little more directing experience could have helped the movie a lot.. but that'd bloat the budget... Kind of a little
catch-22... Fox, quit being cheap asses.
Could you guys imagine what they could do with these franchises with 100 million dollars!? :o
-faints-
Quote from: No Tail on Jan 16, 2008, 05:55:31 PM
Could you guys imagine what they could do with these franchises with 100 million dollars!? :o
-faints-
:o *geekgasm* :D
The Alien and Predator series has never been huge blockbuster movies like Transformers and Spiderman. Giving AVP a 100 million dollar budget would be a mistake. But 30 million is too cheap as well.
Plus, we'd probably get LOTR style battles with over the head shots of hundreds of Aliens fighting hundreds of Predators. No thanks, that sounds stupid.
Yeah, AvP would probably never have a budget of $100+ million.. Although if they did, it'd have much better marketing.
I just don't get it... Uwe Boll can get 70 million for a pretty much no name movie, and Fox won't shell out for these movies and give them a good marketing push, and more importantly, experienced filmmakers.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 16, 2008, 07:46:39 PM
Yeah, AvP would probably never have a budget of $100+ million.. Although if they did, it'd have much better marketing.
I just don't get it... Uwe Boll can get 70 million for a pretty much no name movie, and Fox won't shell out for these movies and give them a good marketing push, and more importantly, experienced filmmakers.
I dont get it either :-\
I mean he had stephen dorph and christian slater in alone in the dark, maybe not A-list anymore but they are still very famous.
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 16, 2008, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 16, 2008, 07:46:39 PM
Yeah, AvP would probably never have a budget of $100+ million.. Although if they did, it'd have much better marketing.
I just don't get it... Uwe Boll can get 70 million for a pretty much no name movie, and Fox won't shell out for these movies and give them a good marketing push, and more importantly, experienced filmmakers.
I dont get it either :-\
I mean he had stephen dorph and christian slater in alone in the dark, maybe not A-list anymore but they are still very famous.
I know.. and Jason Statham who has worked up a decent name for himself.
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 16, 2008, 08:22:46 PM
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 16, 2008, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 16, 2008, 07:46:39 PM
Yeah, AvP would probably never have a budget of $100+ million.. Although if they did, it'd have much better marketing.
I just don't get it... Uwe Boll can get 70 million for a pretty much no name movie, and Fox won't shell out for these movies and give them a good marketing push, and more importantly, experienced filmmakers.
I dont get it either :-\
I mean he had stephen dorph and christian slater in alone in the dark, maybe not A-list anymore but they are still very famous.
I know.. and Jason Statham who has worked up a decent name for himself.
I wonder if Boll spends most the budget on over paying actors to be in his "films"
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 16, 2008, 08:25:57 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 16, 2008, 08:22:46 PM
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 16, 2008, 08:03:04 PM
Quote from: Cellien on Jan 16, 2008, 07:46:39 PM
Yeah, AvP would probably never have a budget of $100+ million.. Although if they did, it'd have much better marketing.
I just don't get it... Uwe Boll can get 70 million for a pretty much no name movie, and Fox won't shell out for these movies and give them a good marketing push, and more importantly, experienced filmmakers.
I dont get it either :-\
I mean he had stephen dorph and christian slater in alone in the dark, maybe not A-list anymore but they are still very famous.
I know.. and Jason Statham who has worked up a decent name for himself.
I wonder if Boll spends most the budget on over paying actors to be in his "films"
the studio doest pay for Bolls movies
Financing
Boll continues to secure investors for the rights to future video-game-to-movie adaptations. His investors are mostly German. He carefully secures the rights for potential future adaptations, afterwards doing all of the actual production himself, and finishes the product.
Movies directed by Boll have performed modestly to poorly at the domestic box office. House of the Dead (budget: $12 million) broke $5.73 million on opening weekend,[4] Alone in the Dark (budget: $20 million) made over $5.1 million,[5] and BloodRayne (budget: $25 million) topped $2.42 million.[6]
In the DVD commentary of Alone in the Dark, Boll explains how he funds his films:
"Maybe you know it but it's not so easy to finance movies in total. And the reason I am able to do these kind of movies is I have a tax shelter fund in Germany, and if you invest in a movie in Germany you get basically fifty percent back from the Government."
Boll is able to acquire funding thanks to German tax laws that reward investments in film. The law allows investors in German-owned films to write off 100% of their investment as a tax deduction; it also allows them to invest borrowed money and write off any fees associated with the loan. The investor is then only required to pay taxes on the profits made by the movie; if the movie loses money, the investor gets a tax writeoff.
While Boll has received a lot of negative publicity regarding this funding method,[7] he was actually one of the few directors to use the tax shelter as intended. His films were financed, produced, and directed by a German company, which was the initial intention behind the tax shelter: to provide incentive for investment in German entertainment properties. Regardless of the law's intention, most of these German film funds ended up funneling money to American studios to finance American blockbusters. The law merely required that the movie's copyright be owned by a German company; thus studios would "sell" a movie's rights to a German company, then immediately lease the movie back for a small fee, while the German owners would agree to very limited control. Essentially, the German company would own the movie on paper, but have no say over its production. Because of this, in January 2006, as had been expected for several months, the German legislature changed the country's tax laws to eliminate the tax shelter. It is not known if this will have any effect on Boll's funding as the new laws only seek to punish investors who are abusing the law for tax purposes; Boll's activities appear to be well within the legitimate usage of the tax shelter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_boll#Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_boll#Criticism)
These days a budget under 50 million for a movie like this is just absurd.
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 09:06:01 PM
Quote from: predator42 on Jan 15, 2008, 09:04:51 PM
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 08:52:14 PM
:o I cant believe this much money is considered low budget film making
spider-man 3 was 258 million.
Well that was big waste :(
Didn't they gross their budget in spades?
Quote from: Alienseseses on Jan 17, 2008, 02:32:29 AM
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 09:06:01 PM
Quote from: predator42 on Jan 15, 2008, 09:04:51 PM
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 15, 2008, 08:52:14 PM
:o I cant believe this much money is considered low budget film making
spider-man 3 was 258 million.
Well that was big waste :(
Didn't they gross their budget in spades?
More than likely, but it was still a waste everyones money
Quote from: shakermakerman on Jan 15, 2008, 08:38:08 PM
Just read the comment what Colin put and he said AvP-R cost half than the first one with marketing, well the first one had a budget of 60 million, If im right 30 million is a pretty low budget. Was there any big sets made from this too?
The marketing didn't cost 60 million...
Quote from: Craig on Jan 17, 2008, 04:20:11 AM
Quote from: shakermakerman on Jan 15, 2008, 08:38:08 PM
Just read the comment what Colin put and he said AvP-R cost half than the first one with marketing, well the first one had a budget of 60 million, If im right 30 million is a pretty low budget. Was there any big sets made from this too?
The marketing didn't cost 60 million...
hes not talking about marketing.
Is the 60million figure of AVP certain? Links?
Quote from: gases on Jan 17, 2008, 04:28:15 AM
Quote from: Craig on Jan 17, 2008, 04:20:11 AM
Quote from: shakermakerman on Jan 15, 2008, 08:38:08 PM
Just read the comment what Colin put and he said AvP-R cost half than the first one with marketing, well the first one had a budget of 60 million, If im right 30 million is a pretty low budget. Was there any big sets made from this too?
The marketing didn't cost 60 million...
hes not talking about marketing.
Is the 60million figure of AVP certain? Links?
Yea i know, he said this film cost 30 mill, which is half of AVP (supposedly cost $60 million) when Colin was relating to the advertising costs. ::)
Quote from: Craig on Jan 17, 2008, 06:45:48 AM
Quote from: gases on Jan 17, 2008, 04:28:15 AM
Quote from: Craig on Jan 17, 2008, 04:20:11 AM
Quote from: shakermakerman on Jan 15, 2008, 08:38:08 PM
Just read the comment what Colin put and he said AvP-R cost half than the first one with marketing, well the first one had a budget of 60 million, If im right 30 million is a pretty low budget. Was there any big sets made from this too?
The marketing didn't cost 60 million...
hes not talking about marketing.
Is the 60million figure of AVP certain? Links?
Yea i know, he said this film cost 30 mill, which is half of AVP (supposedly cost $60 million) when Colin was relating to the advertising costs. ::)
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=13733.msg236406#msg236406
its not very clear is it? but I think that he means AvP:R cost half of AvP, including AvP:R's press budget. I mean he's written as he would have spoken it and I think a lot gets lost in translation when using a forum
I wouldn't be suprised if it was even less than 30 million. Apparently they couldn't even afford to remake the bodies of the aliens and had to re-use the old ones. Considering the film had less sets less CGI and more unkown actors etc... If you think about it AVP 1 looked like it had a bigger budget than 40-45 million with the whaling station sets and the pyramid.
There's alot of moaning about lack of budgets, well known actors etc My personal view is that if you have a quality filmmaker everything will fall into place. Using the remake of Dawn of the Dead as an example, it had a pretty low budget, certainly wasn't over advertised in the Uk and had an ensemble cast and was the remake of a cult film that didn't make much money. Yet it did good business because it was an excellent (in my opinion) kik ass movie ! & 300 kicked ass too - Zak snyder to make AvP 3 !!!
Discuss
I put it like this. Cloverfield was done for 25 million, but felt like a 100 million dollar movie. AvPR was done for over 30 million and felt really freakin' cheap.
Quote from: SiL on Jan 18, 2008, 11:39:57 PM
I put it like this. Cloverfield was done for 25 million, but felt like a 100 million dollar movie. AvPR was done for over 30 million and felt really freakin' cheap.
25?
I think AVP movies should have a somewhat decent budget. Around 50 million would be fine. I just want good actors, good plot and some decent action sequences with a few blood and guts sprinkled on for good mesure.
Why I don't want a small budget? Because with a monster movie things will start to look too cheap. AVP-R was close enough to straight to DVD as it was in terms of production values and I don't want that.
budgets dont matter to a point, its clear that if you have 40 million to spend, an Alien or predator type movie is the way to go, as opposed to an Aliens type one.
So less money shots, more build up.
(ps is clover field good SIL? going to see it soon)
Quote from: shakermakerman on Jan 18, 2008, 11:43:43 PM
25?
That's what they're saying. It wasn't a big budget production.
it is actually 30 million only for cloverfield.
altought many complain on low budget i think bigger budget woud not save the movie
mostly coz of the poor scenario
brother straus had good idea w0t would happend if alien found them selfs on earth and they did as much as they could to show that... but i didnt end up good... scene outside of the hospital before main char entered would be more propitiate to resident evil movie then avp :P
a goof:
if they arrived in front of the hospital woudnt it make sense that they entered the main gate instead of the mourge, witch is defenetly not main entrance
sry for many off topic...
there were several scenes not filmed due to budget restrains...
1. a longer fight scene in the begining involving several predators
2. wolfs arm melting off when he pulls chets tounge out
Quote from: Craig on Jan 17, 2008, 04:20:11 AM
The marketing didn't cost 60 million...
Who's saying the marketing cost 60 million
AvP-R's cost = 1/2 * AvP's cost (including marketing)
Quote from: severen76 on Jan 16, 2008, 08:03:04 PM
I dont get it either :-\
I mean he had stephen dorph and christian slater in alone in the dark, maybe not A-list anymore but they are still very famous.
Despite him being a fine actor who'll even stop in a street in London to talk to a fan (which I've seen happen), I'm getting worried about the idea of Christian Slater being in AVP3
30 million to 40 million is reasonable. i saw the film christmas and last week, you could tell it was a low budget movie, the cgi chestbursters were TERRORABLY done, they were SO FAKE!. that i was disapointed with. now that the movie has made around 95 million, if it eurns about 15 to 20 million more, we can look forward to a sequel. :-\
Yeah, Colin and Greg have always said under $40 million, and I think Colin meant AVP-R's production budget was half of what AVP cost with marketing, which I have heard $60 million, Box office mojo lists that as the budget.
But from what the Strause say, I think the budget for AVP-R was $35-38 million, which is still damn cheap, considering with marketing it was no more then $50 million total for this film, and that the first film had just a production budget reported to be $45 million, and much more advertising then the 2nd film.
I'd say if this movie makes around the same as AVP did worldwide, it will actually have made Fox more money.
"I put it like this. Cloverfield was done for 25 million, but felt like a 100 million dollar movie."
Agreed, but I'm sure the product placement helped a lot there, as it did with Transformers, Paramount got about $50 million back that they budgeted the film for off of product placement deals, I wouldn't be surprised if they got a nice $10-15 million back for deals on this film, but either way, it was made for very cheap, and showed loads of awesome stuff happening, great movie.
"AvPR was done for over 30 million and felt really freakin' cheap."
I actually thought it felt more like a $50 million dollar production, but each to his own
Of course budgets matter. Movies aren't good or bad based on only one factor.
But similar to what SiL said, a good director and production crew can make a film LOOK expensive. AvP looked like more than it actually cost. Pity every other aspect was garbage.
Say what you will about Anderson, but he clearly knew how to manage his money better than the Bros, or at least knew which people to hire to make every penny to spread as far as possible.
Quote from: pred_alien on Jan 19, 2008, 03:42:17 AM
2. wolfs arm melting off when he pulls chets tounge out
is that conclusion from 1 preproduction still?
QuoteSay what you will about Anderson, but he clearly knew how to manage his money better than the Bros, or at least knew which people to hire to make every penny to spread as far as possible.
And to shoot in a country with a good exchange rate.
Those sets don't look cheap, no sir, but they were.
Quote from: n3m0 on Jan 19, 2008, 04:50:19 AM
Quote from: pred_alien on Jan 19, 2008, 03:42:17 AM
2. wolfs arm melting off when he pulls chets tounge out
is that conclusion from 1 preproduction still?
Colin said it was going to happen, but they couldn't afford to do it.
Quote from: Eidotemit on Jan 19, 2008, 05:03:50 AM
Quote from: n3m0 on Jan 19, 2008, 04:50:19 AM
Quote from: pred_alien on Jan 19, 2008, 03:42:17 AM
2. wolfs arm melting off when he pulls chets tounge out
is that conclusion from 1 preproduction still?
Colin said it was going to happen, but they couldn't afford to do it.
true i missed that...
althought i dont like acid proof pred trough whole movie and then only at the end his become acid weak...
a whole movie ignore acid blood... like it works only on humans >:(
Nail polish remover and styrofoam = expensive.
If 30million really was the budget.. I bet the actors barely got paid.
Quote from: MsWolf on Jan 22, 2008, 04:57:08 PM
I bet the actors barely got paid.
Well they arent exactly robert de niro ;)
Still nothing on Mojo http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avp2.htm
And colins keeps going on about the budget restraints, Im going for 20 million.
I remember hearing colin said it was 40 million.
i heard 40, then i heard 35 million, then i heard 25 million was spent on preparing for the actual filming of the movie.
I heard it was 50p Not a penny more. 8)
It'll be embarissingly low, I bet 18-20 million or mabye even less.
I wouldn't go above 30. The shoot was brief, and the guys own their own SFX company. Would have saved them a little money I guess.
Obviously, the move would have resulted in a profit, which is all the studio cares about.
Fox executive #1: hey man, I'm running out of cash
Fox executive #2: well, we always have the alien and predator franchises
Fox executive #1:hey, you walking over there
BS:us?
Fox executive #2:yeah you, what are your names
BS:Where the Brothers Strause
Fox executive #1: here's twenty bucks, go make a movie with the alien and the predator and then come back.
_______________________________________________________________________
I am pretty sure that Colin said it made its money back after the first 10 days.
he also said the DVD sales were higher tahn the budget.
Quote from: Ratchetcomand on May 01, 2008, 06:41:28 PM
I remember hearing colin said it was 40 million.
No way, the first one cost 40 million, Colin said AvPR was half the cost of AvP.
I wonder if they had enough money to ship all the DVD's with night vision goggles so we can all finally see the movie :D
Budget is about 20-30 $ millions.
These guys deserved more.
I think Fans deserve more,not saying Colin and greg aint fans. but its time for them to break the bank and give us the movie we all want.
Hopefully it will have the right color correction :D
Quote from: PHANTOM on May 01, 2008, 10:53:50 PM
Hopefully it will have the right color correction :D
We get it. It pisses you off that the darkness hid all the "visual splendor". No need to rant.
Quote from: PHANTOM on May 01, 2008, 10:53:50 PM
Hopefully it will have the right color correction :D
You really need to stop now. We get that you hate the darkness, but that's only a part of the problem.
No! Keep at it. Stay on message. The one good thing about the damn movie is blacked out.
The first one cost 60 million
It's possible that Fox overstated the budget to lure the fans but I don't think it was less than 30 million...or was it :P
Quote from: Da-Wolf on May 01, 2008, 08:04:31 PM
Fox executive #1: hey man, I'm running out of cash
Fox executive #2: well, we always have the alien and predator franchises
Fox executive #1:hey, you walking over there
BS:us?
Fox executive #2:yeah you, what are your names
BS:Where the Brothers Strause
Fox executive #1: here's twenty bucks, go make a movie with the alien and the predator and then come back.
I woun't be suprise if you right about what you just said ;).
Quote from: happypred on May 01, 2008, 11:30:07 PM
The first one cost 60 million
Anderson said it was less than Alien 3 which was $50 million.
As bad as some parts were, I don't think it's possible that this movie could have been made for under $35 Mil, I've seen Sci-fi Movies at 40 that didnt have the number of shots, or puppets that would have been needed in AVPR.
$35 - $40's my guess.
???
Nothing official about the budget yet, just speculation that goes from 25 mill to 40 mill.
It was 30 million for the movie but they ran out of money hench the fact that the movie was soooo dark :D
52-day shoot in Vancouver.
The budget was around $40 million from what I recall.
Quote from: Stalker on May 11, 2008, 04:09:31 AM
The budget was around $40 million from what I recall.
BS, its about 25 - 30 with marketing.
Thanks im doing this project for computer class and we have to make a "biography" or outline of our favorite book or movie and i picked AVP R. so have to know the budget filming location and the backround on all the actors and stuff. Thanks :D
It's your favourite movie?
we'll no not really but Its the newest of the franchise so i picked it. and besides someone else got my favorite alien movie witch is aliens so AVP R was my number two pick
50mil and done in Canada.
For your project just put $18-28 million. It can't be over that, otherwise we would have known it by now.
$40 million and is done where Aran said.
Now we're just guessing...
I'm not guessing I saw it in BoxofficeMojo, Movieweb, and every other site about movies and is not about the box office.
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on May 11, 2008, 10:07:58 AM
BS, its about 25 - 30 with marketing.
BS again. Colin said on the IMDb that it was over 25 million, not including the marketing.
a whole lot of BS goin' on here... :D
Quote from: SiL on May 11, 2008, 09:07:12 PM
Quote from: Johnny Handsome on May 11, 2008, 10:07:58 AM
BS, its about 25 - 30 with marketing.
BS again. Colin said on the IMDb that it was over 25 million, not including the marketing.
Though if they said it was around 25 million, I'd believe it. The movie looks cheap.