Covenant made only for 111 millions.

[Cheeseburgers]

There's a new behind-the-scenes still in this article, by the way -



Someone else maybe able to find a better link buried in the code.

A version from the actual paper copy of the article via the Creatures Inc. Facebook page -









https://twitter.com/ObsNewReview/status/861159174398464001

Thanks for this.

[Kane's other son]

There's a lot of -ahem- creative accounting going on with those $250 million franchise movies. RS can deliver spectacle with less than half that. Mel Gibson does war movies for $40 million.

[Robopadna]

There's a lot of -ahem- creative accounting going on with those $250 million franchise movies. RS can deliver spectacle with less than half that. Mel Gibson does war movies for $40 million.

I think those budgets are pretty realistic.  RS has yet to deliver anything near those films in scope and scale...  so I think it is dishonest to act like he has.  His films are entirely different and much smaller in scale.

His moveis also don't make anything near what those movies make in box office returns either.  But they don't have to.

[Jonesy1974]

I think RS has made many films far bigger in scale and scope than most $250 budgeted movies out there. Hes making a very valid point about films being made with obscene budgets that shouldn't be necessary. The big franchise movies are guaranteed huge box office so they don't care about trimming the fat of the budget as no risk.

[Marcus9000]

Considering Anderson managed to make AvP for $60M, and it had way more practical creature work and effects, $111M is a lot.

13 years between movies? Inflation?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Robopadna]

I think RS has made many films far bigger in scale and scope than most $250 budgeted movies out there. Hes making a very valid point about films being made with obscene budgets that shouldn't be necessary. The big franchise movies are guaranteed huge box office so they don't care about trimming the fat of the budget as no risk.

Has he?  I don't know of any off the top of my head.  He made Gladiator for 100 or so back in 2000 but I don't think he's ever been up there.

[Jonesy1974]

Gladiator was one of the films I was thinking of but would say kingdom of heaven and exodus are also large scale movies. They may not have had as big a budget compared to some movies but that's maybe the point he's making?

[Robopadna]

Gladiator was one of the films I was thinking of but would say kingdom of heaven and exodus are also large scale movies. They may not have had as big a budget compared to some movies but that's maybe the point he's making?

I don't think he has much of a point really..   I think he's just talking to talk.  He wants to take a few shots at people for whatever reason.  It's not like he's directing indie movies with 5-10 million dollar budgets.  Nor is he making gigantic franchise spectacle sci fi/fantasy movies either.  I'm honestly not sure I would WANT him doing that either.

[Jonesy1974]

I certainly wouldn't want him too. although Prometheus is undoubtably flawed I still love it and suspect I'll feel the same about Covenant.
Cameron on the other hand hasn't made a film I liked since T2 no matter how big the budget and that's a real disappointment to me. Feels such a waste.

[Robopadna]

I certainly wouldn't want him too. although Prometheus is undoubtably flawed I still love it and suspect I'll feel the same about Covenant.
Cameron on the other hand hasn't made a film I liked since T2 no matter how big the budget and that's a real disappointment to me. Feels such a waste.

Eh, I mean every person has an ability.  You are right that I don't think the skill sets of those two directors overlap much but I appreciate what both can bring to the screen.  Titanic was impressive on nearly every level to me and he has consistently pioneered technology to bring different experiences to movie goers.  Cameron has an ability to tell a pretty well paced story and I don't think Scott really has that.  Scott is good at picking conceptually very interesting movies and is absolutely incredible at composing shots but I don't think he has a good sense of what the pacing should be or which scenes should be included over others in a movie.

[PierreVW]

I certainly wouldn't want him too. although Prometheus is undoubtably flawed I still love it and suspect I'll feel the same about Covenant.
Cameron on the other hand hasn't made a film I liked since T2 no matter how big the budget and that's a real disappointment to me. Feels such a waste.

I agree.

Steven Spielberg and Mel Gibson said THE SAME THINGS that Sir Ridley Scott. The 3 LEGENDS criticized these BLOATED Budgets.

[𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯]

I think RS has made many films far bigger in scale and scope than most $250 budgeted movies out there. Hes making a very valid point about films being made with obscene budgets that shouldn't be necessary. The big franchise movies are guaranteed huge box office so they don't care about trimming the fat of the budget as no risk.

Has he?  I don't know of any off the top of my head.  He made Gladiator for 100 or so back in 2000 but I don't think he's ever been up there.

Robin Hood had a $200 million production budget.

Hes making a very valid point about films being made with obscene budgets that shouldn't be necessary.

I was actually surprised to find out he made The Counselor for only $25 million. That's pocket change. Especially considering the cast he had on that.

[Robopadna]

I certainly wouldn't want him too. although Prometheus is undoubtably flawed I still love it and suspect I'll feel the same about Covenant.
Cameron on the other hand hasn't made a film I liked since T2 no matter how big the budget and that's a real disappointment to me. Feels such a waste.

I agree.

Steven Spielberg and Mel Gibson said THE SAME THINGS that Sir Ridley Scott. The 3 LEGENDS criticized these BLOATED Budgets.

I don't recall anyone saying these things but my guess is they didn't mean what you think they mean (Spielberg has worked on plenty of enormous budgeted films).  The complaint can be that you get into this escalation war where your 400 million dollar movie has to be nearly doing a billion world wide to even break even and that no studio is willing to take on that risk for a non tent pole franchise movie.

And they aren't really wrong.  Audiences, despite what people claim, AREN'T looking for new properties as these huge event movies.  They keep flocking to established ones.

Alien Covenant has a very real possibility of losing a decent amount of money given the genre and very large budget for that particular genre.  They're going to have to pull somewhere in the neighborhood of 450-500 million world wide to break even.  Prometheus wasn't even close to that.

I was actually surprised to find out he made The Counselor for only $25 million. That's pocket change. Especially considering the cast he had on that.

I'm not that surprised.  It was an incredibly small scope and was full of actors who are well known for taking small scale wages.  The movie still lost money and, more importantly for that type of a movie, was a critical disaster.

Robin Hood had a $200 million production budget.

You are right.  That might be why no one is willing to give him that budget again =/

I love Scott but his strengths are not in telling a well paced story to an audience.

[𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔈𝔦𝔤𝔥𝔱𝔥 𝔓𝔞𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔫𝔤𝔢𝔯]

I'm not that surprised.  It was an incredibly small scope and was full of actors who are well known for taking small scale wages.

I wasn't aware that Michael Fassbender, Penélope Cruz, Cameron Diaz and Brad Pitt (all household names) were in the habit of "taking small scale wages"? 

You are right.  That might be why no one is willing to give him that budget again =/

Yeah, that one didn't do so well. It didn't look that huge in scope either.

[Protozoid]

Robin Hood went over budget because of delays. If you look into what caused those delays, I think you will find it was because of Crowe, not Scott. Remember The Duellists... Scott can make an epic for under a million if he has to, and it will look amazing.