Scott reveals Covenant budget.
Quote"It's fatal to turn up on set and say, 'What are we going to do?'" he says. "Fatal to discuss where the cameras are going to go. You cannot do that. That's where it comes unhinged. A film like Alien: Covenant would normally be 100 days; we did it in 74. We made it for $111m, as opposed to $180m or $260m. It's insane the amount of money spent. When you're spending $250m on a movie, you should have been fired a year ago."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/07/ridley-scott-i-really-wanted-to-scare-alien-covenant-interview-blade-runner-2049
So, slightly less than Prometheus's $120-$130M. That's still quite a lot of money for what is essentially a small monster movie.
It's really not much money for a big blockbuster.
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2017, 09:51:27 AM
So, slightly less than Prometheus's $120-$130M. That's still quite a lot of money for what is essentially a small monster movie.
Small? I'm totally surprised that it's been made for less than
Prometheus.
The Martian was made for 108 millions but it doesn't have such visually epic special effect like bombing Engineers city and it's doesn't have monster in it. It's has to be tax rebate plus Scott works quick and he knows how to deal with money.
That being said, I'm fully optimistic about
Covenant sequel regarding money (budget and box office) issue.
Considering Anderson managed to make AvP for $60M, and it had way more practical creature work and effects, $111M is a lot.
An $111 million movie makes good box office number more attainable. This greatly increases odds of us getting another Alien film.
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2017, 10:09:10 AM
Considering Anderson managed to make AvP for $60M, and it had way more practical creature work and effects, $111M is a lot.
There are more special effect in
Covenant and they're much better than in
AvP.
Covenant's got more built sets than
AvP. And it's not only the quantity but quality as well. It costs.
AvP doesn't have Fassbender in it. He ain't cheap.
AvP mas made by Anderson.
Covenant by Scott. He ain't cheap either.
Quote from: newagescamartist on May 07, 2017, 10:10:35 AM
An $111 million movie makes good box office number more attainable. This greatly increases odds of us getting another Alien film.
Most definitely. It'll easily make twice that by end of month tops.
Quote from: newagescamartist on May 07, 2017, 10:10:35 AM
An $111 million movie makes good box office number more attainable. This greatly increases odds of us getting another Alien film.
Yep.
I can't believe it's $111million. The film looks so grandiose and gorgeous, it has the look of a $150million blockbuster it truly does.
It'll make most of that back in it's first week of overseas release. Really chuffed with this news.
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2017, 10:09:10 AM
Considering Anderson managed to make AvP for $60M, and it had way more practical creature work and effects, $111M is a lot.
And his film looks like crap compared to Scott's stuff...
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2017, 10:09:10 AM
Considering Anderson managed to make AvP for $60M, and it had way more practical creature work and effects, $111M is a lot.
i most certainly hope you weren't serious with this comment.
111 million huh. this movie is going to grab 1/3 of the budget on official opening night worldwide alone. I get the feeling this will do 650 million + at about the 'end' of it's worldwide cinema run. THEN, when the special extended cut BluRay DVD comes out, with behind-the scenes footage and stuff, it'll do a couple of hundred millions extra.
this movie definately is blowing new life into the alien. a crowd of applause and hats being taken off to ridley.
He did it for 111M... however what was the total allotted budget. He claims to have finished the film in 74 days vs a more reasonable 100 days. He also throws out 180M. I mean did he meet the budget or was he able to come in well under budget? Is the reason they're showing so many trailers etc because of the extra cash left over? :P
Did they have to pay Fassbender twice? :P :laugh: Shit he alone was probably 15% of the budget.
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 10:17:19 AM
Covenant's got more built sets than AvP. And it's not only the quantity but quality as well. It costs.
AvP was done entirely on sets and they were all immense and well-made. That film looked like it cost 100 million on the sets alone.
AvP also came out 13 years ago, so I imagine the equivalent of 60 million would be somewhat higher today.
$76 million today, which is still substantially less than Covenant.
Alien's budget would still only be $36 million today.
Quote from: Clowndog on May 07, 2017, 11:43:30 AM
AvP also came out 13 years ago, so I imagine the equivalent of 60 million would be somewhat higher today.
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2017, 09:51:27 AM
So, slightly less than Prometheus's $120-$130M. That's still quite a lot of money for what is essentially a small monster movie.
The budget for Prometheus would be significantly higher (by 15-20m) had it not been for the UK tax break.
Quote from: SiL on May 07, 2017, 11:38:58 AM
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 10:17:19 AM
Covenant's got more built sets than AvP. And it's not only the quantity but quality as well. It costs.
AvP was done entirely on sets and they were all immense and well-made. That film looked like it cost 100 million on the sets alone.
Maybe but it's a crap movie anyway. It cannot compete with
Covenant on technical level.
Covenant is more expensive because its got more expensive director, cinematographer, production designer, special effects, cast and so on. It's about quality which is always expensive.
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 12:21:14 PM
Maybe but it's a crap movie anyway.
Still has really nice sets.
QuoteCovenant is more expensive because its got more expensive director, cinematographer, production designer, special effects, cast and so on. It's about quality which is always expensive.
Suggesting they spent all of their money on their crew doesn't leave much hope for the production, does it?
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,
and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,
and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,
and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??
I always thought the bad lighting was due to cheaply designed Xenomorphs. I think better lighting would of hurt that movie actually. But I admit that I have a illogical hatred for that movie so its hard for me to talk about it without sounding like a pettifogging asshole.
Was expecting it to be around Prometheus range.
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 09:46:21 AM
Scott reveals Covenant budget.
Quote"It's fatal to turn up on set and say, 'What are we going to do?'" he says. "Fatal to discuss where the cameras are going to go. You cannot do that. That's where it comes unhinged. A film like Alien: Covenant would normally be 100 days; we did it in 74. We made it for $111m, as opposed to $180m or $260m. It's insane the amount of money spent. When you're spending $250m on a movie, you should have been fired a year ago."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/07/ridley-scott-i-really-wanted-to-scare-alien-covenant-interview-blade-runner-2049
A few thing. First that's really disengenuous for him to say that. You really think Disney execs should be fired for spending that on their marvel and Star Wars properties? He's sounding more like he's incredibly jealous than actually making a point.
Second, this movie still has to clear a decent hurdle, financially, that I'm not sure it can in the box office. Overall I'm sure it will at least break even after DVD sales etc.
Quote from: Robopadna on May 07, 2017, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 09:46:21 AM
Scott reveals Covenant budget.
Quote"It's fatal to turn up on set and say, 'What are we going to do?'" he says. "Fatal to discuss where the cameras are going to go. You cannot do that. That's where it comes unhinged. A film like Alien: Covenant would normally be 100 days; we did it in 74. We made it for $111m, as opposed to $180m or $260m. It's insane the amount of money spent. When you're spending $250m on a movie, you should have been fired a year ago."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/07/ridley-scott-i-really-wanted-to-scare-alien-covenant-interview-blade-runner-2049
A few thing. First that's really disengenuous for him to say that. You really think Disney execs should be fired for spending that on their marvel and Star Wars properties? He's sounding more like he's incredibly jealous than actually making a point.
Second, this movie still has to clear a decent hurdle, financially, that I'm not sure it can in the box office. Overall I'm sure it will at least break even after DVD sales etc.
You forget this film opens in 3 quaters of the world on the 19th including China which will bring in some real good numbers.
Quote from: Robopadna on May 07, 2017, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 09:46:21 AM
Scott reveals Covenant budget.
Quote"It's fatal to turn up on set and say, 'What are we going to do?'" he says. "Fatal to discuss where the cameras are going to go. You cannot do that. That's where it comes unhinged. A film like Alien: Covenant would normally be 100 days; we did it in 74. We made it for $111m, as opposed to $180m or $260m. It's insane the amount of money spent. When you're spending $250m on a movie, you should have been fired a year ago."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/07/ridley-scott-i-really-wanted-to-scare-alien-covenant-interview-blade-runner-2049
A few thing. First that's really disengenuous for him to say that. You really think Disney execs should be fired for spending that on their marvel and Star Wars properties? He's sounding more like he's incredibly jealous than actually making a point.
Second, this movie still has to clear a decent hurdle, financially, that I'm not sure it can in the box office. Overall I'm sure it will at least break even after DVD sales etc.
We will see, but Prometheus managed to more than break even and even do quite well with JUST box office. I believe A: C will outperform Prometheus so hopefully that hurdle is cleared by the second weekend of U.S. cinema release (3rd week in other countries).
Quote from: cucuchu on May 07, 2017, 02:29:58 PM
Quote from: Robopadna on May 07, 2017, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 09:46:21 AM
Scott reveals Covenant budget.
Quote"It's fatal to turn up on set and say, 'What are we going to do?'" he says. "Fatal to discuss where the cameras are going to go. You cannot do that. That's where it comes unhinged. A film like Alien: Covenant would normally be 100 days; we did it in 74. We made it for $111m, as opposed to $180m or $260m. It's insane the amount of money spent. When you're spending $250m on a movie, you should have been fired a year ago."
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/07/ridley-scott-i-really-wanted-to-scare-alien-covenant-interview-blade-runner-2049
A few thing. First that's really disengenuous for him to say that. You really think Disney execs should be fired for spending that on their marvel and Star Wars properties? He's sounding more like he's incredibly jealous than actually making a point.
Second, this movie still has to clear a decent hurdle, financially, that I'm not sure it can in the box office. Overall I'm sure it will at least break even after DVD sales etc.
We will see, but Prometheus managed to more than break even and even do quite well with JUST box office. I believe A: C will outperform Prometheus so hopefully that hurdle is cleared by the second weekend of U.S. cinema release (3rd week in other countries).
Prometheus did okish on returns. AC will not make a profit domestically. Assuming the 110 number is right, the film would have to make, approximately 250 million for the film to even sniff coming close to breaking even. It's closer to about 350+
That won't happen.
'
Quote from: SiL on May 07, 2017, 12:24:04 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 12:21:14 PM
Maybe but it's a crap movie anyway.
Still has really nice sets.
QuoteCovenant is more expensive because its got more expensive director, cinematographer, production designer, special effects, cast and so on. It's about quality which is always expensive.
Suggesting they spent all of their money on their crew doesn't leave much hope for the production, does it?
But at least they'll have a nice crew. Right?
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,
and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??
lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,
and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??
lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.
Of course not, but that was part of the issue.
Thats a lot considering there is no Elba, Sheron, Rapace, Spaiths....Fassy must have asked for a double pay check
From what I hear, he acts his little android heart out.
Rapace and Spaihts wouldn't have cost a lot.
I could see Fassbender getting $8mm for Covenant.
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 04:46:31 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,
and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??
lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.
Of course not, but that was part of the issue.
lighting wasn't really an issue, lighting was only something visually noticeable for a select group that was bothered by it. Everything was an issue, from start to finish. The biggest concern was lack of vision, lack of creativity and thinking 'gorey' stuff or supposedly 'shocking' stuff made it 'interesting'. just like that other idiot film of the strauss creeps, 'skyline' aka 'shitline'.
Visually, they do a good job. but by dear god don't let then near any producer or directors chair. and offcourse, the writers for the AVP movies deserve to be banned from hollywood forever likewise.
it's a shame really because there could have been so much good with the ideas. here's hoping that at some point, intelligently done and executed, the predators still are able to 'return' or 'enter' the alien universe.
Lol Ridley, congratulations for making this film cheap as ++++.
Only 100 mil huh.
Quote from: kwisatz on May 07, 2017, 07:25:58 PM
Lol Ridley, congratulations for making this film cheap as ++++.
I don't think that Ridley Scott will read that. Besides, have you seen the movie yet?
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 07:28:46 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on May 07, 2017, 07:25:58 PM
Lol Ridley, congratulations for making this film cheap as ++++.
I don't think that Ridley Scott will read that. Besides, have you seen the movie yet?
also shouldnt he be thanking fox?
Quote from: Ragonk_Force on May 07, 2017, 07:29:50 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 07:28:46 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on May 07, 2017, 07:25:58 PM
Lol Ridley, congratulations for making this film cheap as ++++.
I don't think that Ridley Scott will read that. Besides, have you seen the movie yet?
also shouldnt he be thanking fox?
Yeah.
Wasnt that serious. No doubt Ridley is reading avpg.net though.
Quote from: kwisatz on May 07, 2017, 07:37:13 PM
Wasnt that serious. No doubt Ridley is reading avpg.net though.
Ridley doesn't read press and don't think he surfs the Internet to find out what people write about his movies :)
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,
and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??
lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.
"Hey people are dying. We need guns!"
Also don't forget about marketing costs. They spent a decent chunk to advertise it, so I imagine the total cost was $200 Million. And with sharing the revenue with theaters, I'd estimate the break even point is $400 Million.
Quote from: Anthony on May 07, 2017, 08:05:44 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,
and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??
lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.
"Hey people are dying. We need guns!"
Also don't forget about marketing costs. They spent a decent chunk to advertise it, so I imagine the total cost was $200 Million. And with sharing the revenue with theaters, I'd estimate the break even point is $400 Million.
Depending on which market the money is coming from its probably closer to 500 to break even. At least from the box office.
Quote from: Robopadna on May 07, 2017, 08:10:09 PM
Quote from: Anthony on May 07, 2017, 08:05:44 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,
and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??
lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.
"Hey people are dying. We need guns!"
Also don't forget about marketing costs. They spent a decent chunk to advertise it, so I imagine the total cost was $200 Million. And with sharing the revenue with theaters, I'd estimate the break even point is $400 Million.
Depending on which market the money is coming from its probably closer to 500 to break even. At least from the box office.
Half a billion just to break even? That doesn't sound right at all.
Did the movie cost $111 million to make before or after rebates? I imagine part of the reason this movie is cheaper than Prometheus overall is because it got better rebates. They might have cost a similar amount to actually make.
Yeah, a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on here. Every situation is different, Hollywood is not some big monolith. Different deals are made with each discrete product. But generally, these days, making make 3x the production budget(not including marketing) is the break-even point.
Covenant's budget is $111 million, so it would have to make back $333 million worldwide. Maybe it's a bit higher or lower, but if the current standard is applied then that's where the goalpost is.
Quote from: BishopShouldGo on May 07, 2017, 08:49:00 PM
Yeah, a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on here. Every situation is different, Hollywood is not some big monolith. Different deals are made with each discrete product. But generally, these days, making make 3x the production budget(not including marketing) is the break-even point.
Covenant's budget is $111 million, so it would have to make back $333 million worldwide. Maybe it's a bit higher or lower, but if the current standard is applied then that's where the goalpost is.
The studio has named the budget so it is the best guess as to what they spent. It's true they are incredibly deceptive with thei bookkeeping but it's all anyone has to go on.
I have usually see 2 - 2.5 times the declared budget for advertising and distribution which I will just ballpark around 250 million.
The studios only get 50% of the domestic box office and 40% of the foreign market outside of china where they get about 30%.
I think that's a steep financial need for a very violent hard sci fi movie.
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 11:16:16 AM
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2017, 10:09:10 AM
Considering Anderson managed to make AvP for $60M, and it had way more practical creature work and effects, $111M is a lot.
i most certainly hope you weren't serious with this comment.
111 million huh. this movie is going to grab 1/3 of the budget on official opening night worldwide alone. I get the feeling this will do 650 million + at about the 'end' of it's worldwide cinema run. THEN, when the special extended cut BluRay DVD comes out, with behind-the scenes footage and stuff, it'll do a couple of hundred millions extra.
this movie definately is blowing new life into the alien. a crowd of applause and hats being taken off to ridley.
Will there be a special extended BluRay cut?
Quote from: salomonj on May 07, 2017, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 11:16:16 AM
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2017, 10:09:10 AM
Considering Anderson managed to make AvP for $60M, and it had way more practical creature work and effects, $111M is a lot.
i most certainly hope you weren't serious with this comment.
111 million huh. this movie is going to grab 1/3 of the budget on official opening night worldwide alone. I get the feeling this will do 650 million + at about the 'end' of it's worldwide cinema run. THEN, when the special extended cut BluRay DVD comes out, with behind-the scenes footage and stuff, it'll do a couple of hundred millions extra.
this movie definately is blowing new life into the alien. a crowd of applause and hats being taken off to ridley.
Will there be a special extended BluRay cut?
I haven't heard anything about that, but I sincerely hope Fox drops extended versions of Prometheus and Covenant in the near future.
Quote from: Predaker on May 07, 2017, 08:28:10 PM
Quote from: Robopadna on May 07, 2017, 08:10:09 PM
Quote from: Anthony on May 07, 2017, 08:05:44 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
Quote from: Gigeresque on May 07, 2017, 02:08:55 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
yet avp is reminded as shit and avp:r as shit that you just stepped on,
and covenant will vastly be remembered as ridley's breakthrough return to the original movie and highly memorable, being right up there with the original and the sequel.
I always felt sorry for strauss brothers. I mean they worked hard on that film despite studio restrictions, and to have someone screw up the lighting must have been terrible for them. I always wondered if they could have corrected that would it have been somewhat better??
lol, as if the problem with the movie was due to lighting. come on, for real.
"Hey people are dying. We need guns!"
Also don't forget about marketing costs. They spent a decent chunk to advertise it, so I imagine the total cost was $200 Million. And with sharing the revenue with theaters, I'd estimate the break even point is $400 Million.
Depending on which market the money is coming from its probably closer to 500 to break even. At least from the box office.
Half a billion just to break even? That doesn't sound right at all.
Easily. That isn't crazy at all and may be a bit low. You know how little studios get from the box office?
Quote from: Protozoid on May 07, 2017, 09:28:31 PM
Quote from: salomonj on May 07, 2017, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 11:16:16 AM
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2017, 10:09:10 AM
Considering Anderson managed to make AvP for $60M, and it had way more practical creature work and effects, $111M is a lot.
i most certainly hope you weren't serious with this comment.
111 million huh. this movie is going to grab 1/3 of the budget on official opening night worldwide alone. I get the feeling this will do 650 million + at about the 'end' of it's worldwide cinema run. THEN, when the special extended cut BluRay DVD comes out, with behind-the scenes footage and stuff, it'll do a couple of hundred millions extra.
this movie definately is blowing new life into the alien. a crowd of applause and hats being taken off to ridley.
Will there be a special extended BluRay cut?
I haven't heard anything about that, but I sincerely hope Fox drops extended versions of Prometheus and Covenant in the near future.
I really hope so. 2 Hours is sucha short runtime. Hopefully for Scott's next movie he learns his lesson,
I think he's pretty happy with the released version of Prometheus. That being said, I wish he'd add the Elder Engineers at the beginning and more of the conversation between the Space Jockey and Weyland. In the released version that scene goes right for the jugular rather than building that moment up.
Sir Ridley Scott works very fast so He saves TIME and MONEY.
Quote from: echobbase79 on May 07, 2017, 09:40:39 PM
I think he's pretty happy with the released version of Prometheus. That being said, I wish he'd add the Elder Engineers at the beginning and more of the conversation between the Space Jockey and Weyland. In the released version that scene goes right for the jugular rather than building that moment up.
100% agree.
Quote from: PierreVW on May 07, 2017, 10:03:07 PM
Sir Ridley Scott works very fast so He saves TIME and MONEY.
Time? Well, he's 80. Time flies.
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 10:08:34 PM
Quote from: echobbase79 on May 07, 2017, 09:40:39 PM
I think he's pretty happy with the released version of Prometheus. That being said, I wish he'd add the Elder Engineers at the beginning and more of the conversation between the Space Jockey and Weyland. In the released version that scene goes right for the jugular rather than building that moment up.
100% agree.
Quote from: PierreVW on May 07, 2017, 10:03:07 PM
Sir Ridley Scott works very fast so He saves TIME and MONEY.
Time? Well, he's 80. Time flies.
I known. Still Sir Ridley works very fast. He is going to RELEASE 2 movies this 2017: ALIEN: COVENANT and ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD(Late December).
Quote from: salomonj on May 07, 2017, 09:30:43 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on May 07, 2017, 09:28:31 PM
Quote from: salomonj on May 07, 2017, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 11:16:16 AM
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2017, 10:09:10 AM
Considering Anderson managed to make AvP for $60M, and it had way more practical creature work and effects, $111M is a lot.
i most certainly hope you weren't serious with this comment.
111 million huh. this movie is going to grab 1/3 of the budget on official opening night worldwide alone. I get the feeling this will do 650 million + at about the 'end' of it's worldwide cinema run. THEN, when the special extended cut BluRay DVD comes out, with behind-the scenes footage and stuff, it'll do a couple of hundred millions extra.
this movie definately is blowing new life into the alien. a crowd of applause and hats being taken off to ridley.
Will there be a special extended BluRay cut?
I haven't heard anything about that, but I sincerely hope Fox drops extended versions of Prometheus and Covenant in the near future.
I really hope so. 2 Hours is sucha short runtime. Hopefully for Scott's next movie he learns his lesson,
Unclear if it's Fox, Ridley, the editor Pietro Scalia, or a perfect storm combination of all three. Scott has made five movies in a row for Fox, and it seems almost random which ones get extended versions and which ones do not. Exodus
desperately needs one, but Fox isn't interested. The Counselor arguably needed it, and the extended cut helped people come around to the movie. The Martian probably didn't need it, but the longer cut is the new default for many. Prometheus and Covenant would probably be costly to extend, but I think it would be worth it if it led to a Blade Runner/Alien3/Counselor situation where the new cut greatly improves the movie's reputation. People often give extended cuts a fair chance to change their mind. If you watch the deleted scenes on any movie Scalia edited, you will find stuff that doesn't belong on the cutting room floor.
Quote from: echobbase79 on May 07, 2017, 09:40:39 PM
I think he's pretty happy with the released version of Prometheus. That being said, I wish he'd add the Elder Engineers at the beginning and more of the conversation between the Space Jockey and Weyland. In the released version that scene goes right for the jugular rather than building that moment up.
I'm a little confused why Scott is so confidant that Prometheus doesn't need an extended cut, after admitting that he liked the longer cut but Scalia convinced him it needed to be under two hours and structured differently. I think the reshoots made the movie considerably more on-the-nose, which I don't like. There is definitely room for a better cut, but I think it would mean adding back in a scene between Vickers and Janek and cutting the scene between Janek and Shaw. That, right there, changes the movie in a pretty drastic way, from having rushed exposition in the third act that is on-the-nose and far too quick. The conversation with Vickers and Janek gets us inside Janek's head in a way that the scene with Shaw really fails to do. She just tells him what to do, instead of us, as the audience, discovering it for ourselves and being able to read into Janek's later decisions. If they want to improve the pacing, cut the Isle of Skye sequence, which is redundant and presented in a rushed way that is, again, on the nose. Then, restore the structure of the third act to give Shaw more of a chance to shine and allow the story to unfold at a more measured pace. They might as well add the Engineer stuff back in, too, but I think the character stuff is more important. They really stepped wrong by cutting that back. Vickers and particularly Janek really, really needed that scene, and I can do without most of the reshoots. I wish they would release the assembly version, like they did with Alien3. Just try to make the movie close to the shooting script using the footage minus the reshoots. That version would be a revelation to many.
Quote from: PierreVW on May 07, 2017, 10:12:25 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 10:08:34 PM
Quote from: echobbase79 on May 07, 2017, 09:40:39 PM
I think he's pretty happy with the released version of Prometheus. That being said, I wish he'd add the Elder Engineers at the beginning and more of the conversation between the Space Jockey and Weyland. In the released version that scene goes right for the jugular rather than building that moment up.
100% agree.
Quote from: PierreVW on May 07, 2017, 10:03:07 PM
Sir Ridley Scott works very fast so He saves TIME and MONEY.
Time? Well, he's 80. Time flies.
I known. Still Sir Ridley works very fast. He is going to RELEASE 2 movies this 2017: ALIEN: COVENANT and ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD(Late December).
Off topic, but where have you heard about Scott releasing All The Money in December?
I don't think he will release All The Money In The World this year. He hasn't even started shooting it. I predict Spring 2018.
I was thinking Fall 2018, in time for that year's Oscar season.
Then after its Alien Awakening.
Quote from: Protozoid on May 07, 2017, 10:12:53 PM
Quote from: salomonj on May 07, 2017, 09:30:43 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on May 07, 2017, 09:28:31 PM
Quote from: salomonj on May 07, 2017, 09:23:59 PM
Quote from: cliffhanger on May 07, 2017, 11:16:16 AM
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2017, 10:09:10 AM
Considering Anderson managed to make AvP for $60M, and it had way more practical creature work and effects, $111M is a lot.
i most certainly hope you weren't serious with this comment.
111 million huh. this movie is going to grab 1/3 of the budget on official opening night worldwide alone. I get the feeling this will do 650 million + at about the 'end' of it's worldwide cinema run. THEN, when the special extended cut BluRay DVD comes out, with behind-the scenes footage and stuff, it'll do a couple of hundred millions extra.
this movie definately is blowing new life into the alien. a crowd of applause and hats being taken off to ridley.
Will there be a special extended BluRay cut?
I haven't heard anything about that, but I sincerely hope Fox drops extended versions of Prometheus and Covenant in the near future.
I really hope so. 2 Hours is sucha short runtime. Hopefully for Scott's next movie he learns his lesson,
Unclear if it's Fox, Ridley, the editor Pietro Scalia, or a perfect storm combination of all three. Scott has made five movies in a row for Fox, and it seems almost random which ones get extended versions and which ones do not. Exodus desperately needs one, but Fox isn't interested. The Counselor arguably needed it, and the extended cut helped people come around to the movie. The Martian probably didn't need it, but the longer cut is the new default for many. Prometheus and Covenant would probably be costly to extend, but I think it would be worth it if it led to a Blade Runner/Alien3/Counselor situation where the new cut greatly improves the movie's reputation. People often give extended cuts a fair chance to change their mind. If you watch the deleted scenes on any movie Scalia edited, you will find stuff that doesn't belong on the cutting room floor.
Quote from: echobbase79 on May 07, 2017, 09:40:39 PM
I think he's pretty happy with the released version of Prometheus. That being said, I wish he'd add the Elder Engineers at the beginning and more of the conversation between the Space Jockey and Weyland. In the released version that scene goes right for the jugular rather than building that moment up.
I'm a little confused why Scott is so confidant that Prometheus doesn't need an extended cut, after admitting that he liked the longer cut but Scalia convinced him it needed to be under two hours and structured differently. I think the reshoots made the movie considerably more on-the-nose, which I don't like. There is definitely room for a better cut, but I think it would mean adding back in a scene between Vickers and Janek and cutting the scene between Janek and Shaw. That, right there, changes the movie in a pretty drastic way, from having rushed exposition in the third act that is on-the-nose and far too quick. The conversation with Vickers and Janek gets us inside Janek's head in a way that the scene with Shaw really fails to do. She just tells him what to do, instead of us, as the audience, discovering it for ourselves and being able to read into Janek's later decisions. If they want to improve the pacing, cut the Isle of Skye sequence, which is redundant and presented in a rushed way that is, again, on the nose. Then, restore the structure of the third act to give Shaw more of a chance to shine and allow the story to unfold at a more measured pace. They might as well add the Engineer stuff back in, too, but I think the character stuff is more important. They really stepped wrong by cutting that back. Vickers and particularly Janek really, really needed that scene, and I can do without most of the reshoots. I wish they would release the assembly version, like they did with Alien3. Just try to make the movie close to the shooting script using the footage minus the reshoots. That version would be a revelation to many.
I didn't know this. I only heard an interview where he talked about how he thought the movie worked as is. But this was during the PR tour after the film was released. He'd talked about how he cut thirty minutes out and that it would be on the bluray release. Some people got confused thinking that he meant an extended cut.
I totally agree with you about that scene. I personally find the scene between Shaw and Janek to be very plot convenient. It's also not acted as good either.
Ridley did turn down the chance to restore the deleted scenes, so that says something. But he didn't have any problems with the assembly, seemingly. The making of Prometheus documentary gives the impression that Scalia took the lead in deciding the final form of the movie, and after watching the movie dozens of times the decisions that Scalia made are really bothering me. I think Damon Lindelof's script was more balanced before Scalia abbreviated it.
Quote from: Anthony on May 07, 2017, 10:13:39 PM
Quote from: PierreVW on May 07, 2017, 10:12:25 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on May 07, 2017, 10:08:34 PM
Quote from: echobbase79 on May 07, 2017, 09:40:39 PM
I think he's pretty happy with the released version of Prometheus. That being said, I wish he'd add the Elder Engineers at the beginning and more of the conversation between the Space Jockey and Weyland. In the released version that scene goes right for the jugular rather than building that moment up.
100% agree.
Quote from: PierreVW on May 07, 2017, 10:03:07 PM
Sir Ridley Scott works very fast so He saves TIME and MONEY.
Time? Well, he's 80. Time flies.
I known. Still Sir Ridley works very fast. He is going to RELEASE 2 movies this 2017: ALIEN: COVENANT and ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD(Late December).
Off topic, but where have you heard about Scott releasing All The Money in December?
In Gold Derby Website about the new drama from Steven Spielberg with Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep.
Both of them(Sir Ridley and Spielberg) are doing the same thing. Both are beginning to be filming in a few days. Both of their movies are RELEASING THIS late December.
Quote from: Protozoid on May 07, 2017, 11:38:19 PM
Ridley did turn down the chance to restore the deleted scenes, so that says something. But he didn't have any problems with the assembly, seemingly. The making of Prometheus documentary gives the impression that Scalia took the lead in deciding the final form of the movie, and after watching the movie dozens of times the decisions that Scalia made are really bothering me. I think Damon Lindelof's script was more balanced before Scalia abbreviated it.
Sir Ridley said: He prefers his films to be short, direct and concise in the theaters. He prefers THE LONGER versions for The Home Market. He said this several times.
That's why He trusted in Pietro Scalia. Scalia is direct and concise. Sir Ridley made that decision with KINGDOM OF HEAVEN too. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: THEATRICAL CUT is a Pietro Scalia movie. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT is a Sir Ridley Scott masterpiece.
Quote from: Protozoid on May 07, 2017, 11:38:19 PM
Ridley did turn down the chance to restore the deleted scenes, so that says something. But he didn't have any problems with the assembly, seemingly. The making of Prometheus documentary gives the impression that Scalia took the lead in deciding the final form of the movie, and after watching the movie dozens of times the decisions that Scalia made are really bothering me. I think Damon Lindelof's script was more balanced before Scalia abbreviated it.
Sir Ridley said: He prefers his films to be short, direct and concise in the theaters. He prefers THE LONGER versions for The Home Market. He said this several times.
That's why He trusted in Pietro Scalia. Scalia is direct and concise. Sir Ridley made that decision with KINGDOM OF HEAVEN too. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: THEATRICAL CUT is a Pietro Scalia movie. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT is a Sir Ridley Scott masterpiece.
[/quote]
Dody Dorn edited Kingdom of Heaven, but I understand what you mean by that comparison. I'm one of those weirdos who would like to see another, longer cut of Kingdom of Heaven. There is still some good stuff on the cutting room floor, including an alternate ending that I prefer. Out of the five endings they had, I think they used my least-favorite one for both cuts. Balian should have ridden past Sibylla and been alone back in France, but what do I know?
If Scott releases long versions of Prometheus, Exodus, and Covenant I will be happy. But, Scott turned down the chance to extend Prometheus back in 2012 and Fox doesn't seem to want to release the long version of Exodus. This idea of doing two versions only works if the other cut actually comes out. Otherwise, Fox is missing out on the chance to have Prometheus and Exodus get a positive reappraisal the way Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Counselor did - arguably Scott's three best movies after the extensions.
Quote from: Protozoid on May 08, 2017, 12:57:29 AM
Quote from: Protozoid on May 07, 2017, 11:38:19 PM
Ridley did turn down the chance to restore the deleted scenes, so that says something. But he didn't have any problems with the assembly, seemingly. The making of Prometheus documentary gives the impression that Scalia took the lead in deciding the final form of the movie, and after watching the movie dozens of times the decisions that Scalia made are really bothering me. I think Damon Lindelof's script was more balanced before Scalia abbreviated it.
Sir Ridley said: He prefers his films to be short, direct and concise in the theaters. He prefers THE LONGER versions for The Home Market. He said this several times.
That's why He trusted in Pietro Scalia. Scalia is direct and concise. Sir Ridley made that decision with KINGDOM OF HEAVEN too. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: THEATRICAL CUT is a Pietro Scalia movie. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT is a Sir Ridley Scott masterpiece.
Dody Dorn edited Kingdom of Heaven, but I understand what you mean by that comparison. I'm one of those weirdos who would like to see another, longer cut of Kingdom of Heaven. There is still some good stuff on the cutting room floor, including an alternate ending that I prefer. Out of the five endings they had, I think they used my least-favorite one for both cuts. Balian should have ridden past Sibylla and been alone back in France, but what do I know?
If Scott releases long versions of Prometheus, Exodus, and Covenant I will be happy. But, Scott turned down the chance to extend Prometheus back in 2012 and Fox doesn't seem to want to release the long version of Exodus. This idea of doing two versions only works if the other cut actually comes out. Otherwise, Fox is missing out on the chance to have Prometheus and Exodus get a positive reappraisal the way Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Counselor did - arguably Scott's three best movies after the extensions.
[/quote]
Sir Ridley said: "I'm 70% artist 30% commercial". I think this quote is even in his IMDb. He always thinks in terms of money too. That's why his films are DIRECT and CONCISE in theaters. He changes for his Director's Cuts. He is always thinking in terms of box office and Blu-Rays too.
I remembered he said his EXODUS cut is 3 Hours(180 Minutes) The Theatrical Version is only 150 Minutes(30 minutes less).
Do you think Scott would do longer versions of all of his movies if he could, Pierre?
Quote from: Protozoid on May 08, 2017, 01:11:31 AM
Do you think Scott would do longer versions of all of his movies if he could, Pierre?
He loved the short(theatrical) version of THE MARTIAN.
He doesn't have faith in normal people(most moviegoers). That's why he makes shorter films for theaters. His Directors Cuts are ONLY for Home like he said.
The theatrical version of The Martian was pretty perfect already, but I do like the long version. I can live with the current version of Prometheus, too, but Exodus is another story. I really hope the 180 minute version is released someday.
There's a new behind-the-scenes still in this article, by the way -
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b1bd81bc978685ba2897a493a064903461fb9e6a/0_2265_3448_2067/master/3448.jpg?w=1200&h=630&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=crop&crop=faces%2Centropy&bm=normal&ba=bottom%2Cleft&blend64=aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxvYWRzLmd1aW0uY28udWsvMjAxNi8wNS8yNS9vdmVybGF5LWxvZ28tMTIwMC05MF9vcHQucG5n&s=4d47c04b6d6754ee0479bc5e4eb1ab01)
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://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyaXYZwH.jpg&hash=d14f03a5463993eb028086fd4c9c38ef09db46ed)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYHtzOxG.jpg&hash=6ea590b19c11b2c8f334f2d76de6bd416fdf37f5)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_E8R4SXkAACBHa.jpg:large)
https://twitter.com/ObsNewReview/status/861159174398464001
I sense he's getting a little subtle dig in on James Cameron when he's expressing how important being decisive is in regards to time and budget.
I think it'd be more a dig at everyone these days who spend six months with $200 million dollar budgets for less result than he churns out.
As for whoever said 2 hours is a short run time, Alien is only 115 minutes and Ridley's 2003 cut is even shorter.
Quote from: newagescamartist on May 08, 2017, 09:16:09 AM
I sense he's getting a little subtle dig in on James Cameron when he's expressing how important being decisive is in regards to time and budget.
I'm sure Cameron gives a crap considering he has two of the top three movies of all time in box office returns. In addition he has worked on plenty of small budgets and made some of the most iconic sci fi movies.
Quote from: Robopadna on May 08, 2017, 10:16:25 AM
Quote from: newagescamartist on May 08, 2017, 09:16:09 AM
I sense he's getting a little subtle dig in on James Cameron when he's expressing how important being decisive is in regards to time and budget.
I'm sure Cameron gives a crap considering he has two of the top three movies of all time in box office returns. In addition he has worked on plenty of small budgets and made some of the most iconic sci fi movies.
Oh I agree, I doubt he cares.
Quote from: newagescamartist on May 08, 2017, 01:28:15 PM
Quote from: Robopadna on May 08, 2017, 10:16:25 AM
Quote from: newagescamartist on May 08, 2017, 09:16:09 AM
I sense he's getting a little subtle dig in on James Cameron when he's expressing how important being decisive is in regards to time and budget.
I'm sure Cameron gives a crap considering he has two of the top three movies of all time in box office returns. In addition he has worked on plenty of small budgets and made some of the most iconic sci fi movies.
Oh I agree, I doubt he cares.
It just seems petty. No one at Disney regrets 200 million a movie for their marvel and Star Wars franchises.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on May 08, 2017, 07:41:55 AM
There's a new behind-the-scenes still in this article, by the way -
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b1bd81bc978685ba2897a493a064903461fb9e6a/0_2265_3448_2067/master/3448.jpg?w=1200&h=630&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=crop&crop=faces%2Centropy&bm=normal&ba=bottom%2Cleft&blend64=aHR0cHM6Ly91cGxvYWRzLmd1aW0uY28udWsvMjAxNi8wNS8yNS9vdmVybGF5LWxvZ28tMTIwMC05MF9vcHQucG5n&s=4d47c04b6d6754ee0479bc5e4eb1ab01)
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://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FyaXYZwH.jpg&hash=d14f03a5463993eb028086fd4c9c38ef09db46ed)
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYHtzOxG.jpg&hash=6ea590b19c11b2c8f334f2d76de6bd416fdf37f5)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_E8R4SXkAACBHa.jpg:large)
https://twitter.com/ObsNewReview/status/861159174398464001
Thanks for this.
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.
Quote from: Kane's other son on May 08, 2017, 01:37:49 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Darkness on May 07, 2017, 10:09:10 AM
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
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on May 08, 2017, 03:06:54 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on May 08, 2017, 04:34:50 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on May 08, 2017, 05:05:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on May 08, 2017, 05:05:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Robopadna on May 08, 2017, 04:23:24 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on May 08, 2017, 03:06:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on May 08, 2017, 03:06:54 PM
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.
Quote from: PierreVW on May 08, 2017, 05:26:01 PM
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on May 08, 2017, 05:05:37 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteRobin 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.
Quote from: Robopadna on May 08, 2017, 05:38:04 PM
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"? ???
Quote from: Robopadna on May 08, 2017, 05:38:04 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Protozoid on May 08, 2017, 05:56:08 PM
Robin Hood went over budget because of delays.
I was wondering where all the money went. You can usually see every penny on-screen in a Ridley Scott film. He could have done Robin Hood on $130 million.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 05:45:05 PMI 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"? ???
Really? They do it all the time... constantly.
I agree that some of Scott's films aren't paced as I'd like. Prometheus is too short and the final act moves far to rapidly, early reaction suggests covenant suffers the same issue. I wonder how much that is due to Scott putting too much faith in the editor. But at least Scott is trying to tell interesting stories with depth and visually his films always look big budgeted.
Cameron's last few films are bloated and overlong without a compelling story to carry them imo.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 06:04:39 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on May 08, 2017, 05:56:08 PM
Robin Hood went over budget because of delays.
I was wondering where all the money went. You can usually see every penny on-screen in a Ridley Scott film. He could have done Robin Hood on $130 million.
Robin Hood was shot in UK that's why it was so bloody expensive.
Actually watched the counsellor last night. It's a incoherent mess with some memorable moments. I can see those actors being prepared to take wage cuts to be involved in a film with that pedigree but sure it didn't turn out how they expected!
Quote from: Robopadna on May 08, 2017, 06:28:24 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 05:45:05 PMI 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"? ???
Really? They do it all the time... constantly.
Oh? Because I heard Cameron Diaz was named the highest-paid actress over 40 in Hollywood a year or two back. Penélope Cruz and Brad Pitt are Academy award winners. Fassbender is a cheapskate though, heard he only got 8 or 9 million for Covenant.
Quote from: Ingwar on May 08, 2017, 06:32:18 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 06:04:39 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on May 08, 2017, 05:56:08 PM
Robin Hood went over budget because of delays.
I was wondering where all the money went. You can usually see every penny on-screen in a Ridley Scott film. He could have done Robin Hood on $130 million.
Robin Hood was shot in UK that's why it was so bloody expensive.
So was Prometheus.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 06:39:52 PM
Oh? Because I heard Cameron Diaz was named the highest-paid actress over 40 in Hollywood a year or two back. Penélope Cruz and Brad Pitt are Academy award winners. Fassbender is a cheapskate though, heard he only got 8 or 9 million for Covenant.
What someone gets for one movie with a 250 million budget is not the same as what one gets to take part in a 15 million dollar movie.
They are all very well known for taking pay cuts or even working for scale. Pitt constantly does it and he's by far and away the most famous and bankable person on that list.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 06:39:52 PM
Quote from: Robopadna on May 08, 2017, 06:28:24 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 05:45:05 PMI 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"? ???
Really? They do it all the time... constantly.
Oh? Because I heard Cameron Diaz was named the highest-paid actress over 40 in Hollywood a year or two back. Penélope Cruz and Brad Pitt are Academy award winners. Fassbender is a cheapskate though, heard he only got 8 or 9 million for Covenant.
Quote from: Ingwar on May 08, 2017, 06:32:18 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 06:04:39 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on May 08, 2017, 05:56:08 PM
Robin Hood went over budget because of delays.
I was wondering where all the money went. You can usually see every penny on-screen in a Ridley Scott film. He could have done Robin Hood on $130 million.
Robin Hood was shot in UK that's why it was so bloody expensive.
So was Prometheus.
Many actors would definitely take a pay cut if they like the director, material and co-stars. Ridley Scott directing and a script by Cormac McCarthy is enticing to most people, and they'd understand why the movie would have to be kept under a certain number. Working with that material is payment enough, really. Jonah Hill famously took a massive pay cut to be in Wolf of Wall Street, and even joked that HE would pay Scorsese to take part.
Quote from: Robopadna on May 08, 2017, 06:47:06 PM
What someone gets for one movie with a 250 million budget is not the same as what one gets to take part in a 15 million dollar movie.
They are all very well known for taking pay cuts or even working for scale. Pitt constantly does it and he's by far and away the most famous and bankable person on that list.
Yeah but shit, they must have taken a pittance on a $25 million dollar film. Basically charity.
Quote from: Jonesy1974 on May 08, 2017, 06:31:27 PM
I agree that some of Scott's films aren't paced as I'd like. Prometheus is too short and the final act moves far to rapidly, early reaction suggests covenant suffers the same issue. I wonder how much that is due to Scott putting too much faith in the editor. But at least Scott is trying to tell interesting stories with depth and visually his films always look big budgeted.
Cameron's last few films are bloated and overlong without a compelling story to carry them imo.
I agree.
James Cameron is like Michael Bay. Avatar sequels are Transformers sequels. Too much ego.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 06:39:52 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on May 08, 2017, 06:32:18 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 06:04:39 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on May 08, 2017, 05:56:08 PM
Robin Hood went over budget because of delays.
I was wondering where all the money went. You can usually see every penny on-screen in a Ridley Scott film. He could have done Robin Hood on $130 million.
Robin Hood was shot in UK that's why it was so bloody expensive.
So was Prometheus.
They built entire village and mock castle. Plus they used plenty of extras and horses and they moved from location to location. Maybe that's why it did cost a fortune plus delays.
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 06:52:15 PM
Quote from: Robopadna on May 08, 2017, 06:47:06 PM
What someone gets for one movie with a 250 million budget is not the same as what one gets to take part in a 15 million dollar movie.
They are all very well known for taking pay cuts or even working for scale. Pitt constantly does it and he's by far and away the most famous and bankable person on that list.
Yeah but shit, they must have taken a pittance on a $25 million dollar film. Basically charity.
He will work for scale. If his production company wants to make a movie that is not really in the norm he will agree to be in it and get paid scale to get investors/studios far more likely to invest the money to make it. He (and they) also do it for movies that aren't related to their production company because they like/believe in a script or really want to work with certain people/directors.
He took a million for the assassination of jesse james. He took similar amounts for the counselor, killing them softly, etc.
Not suprising that its only "111 million", remember its a 15 Rating, only way he could have got more money was to make a PG/12 rating film.
Quote from: Ingwar on May 08, 2017, 06:54:20 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 06:39:52 PM
Quote from: Ingwar on May 08, 2017, 06:32:18 PM
Quote from: The Eighth Passenger on May 08, 2017, 06:04:39 PM
Quote from: Protozoid on May 08, 2017, 05:56:08 PM
Robin Hood went over budget because of delays.
I was wondering where all the money went. You can usually see every penny on-screen in a Ridley Scott film. He could have done Robin Hood on $130 million.
Robin Hood was shot in UK that's why it was so bloody expensive.
So was Prometheus.
They built entire village and mock castle. Plus they used plenty of extras and horses and they moved from location to location. Maybe that's why it did cost a fortune plus delays.
I agree.
Usually movies filmed in studio(PROMETHEUS) costed LESS money than movies filmed on real places(ROBIN HOOD).
Quote from: PierreVW on May 08, 2017, 08:56:27 PM
Usually movies filmed in studio(PROMETHEUS) costed LESS money than movies filmed on real places(ROBIN HOOD).
Very untrue. Unless you want a very specific location where... the owners ask money :D
The studio is a day-fee and studios tends to take a huge amount of time to create.
1000 a day for 30 days in small studios is 30 000 just for the place.
So imagine you have to create multiple sets.
For natural settings, production usually film in locations where there are tax rebates.
Like
New Zealand...
Australia... Canada... France you know ::)
You also get tax rebates if you
hire some crew/company from the country you're shooting in.
What costs a lot in movies are Big heads salary (actors/directors/special crew) asking Millions.
Then there's the obvious amount of people you hire.
Prometheus has over 2000 people credited.
2000 x salary x months worked on the project = a lot.
Producers try to save every penny on a production, from food to vehicles, hotels... of course the VIP personal, like actors and directors gets special treatments but it impact very few compared to the work force that is there daily working hours for months on the film.
Scott want a new trilogy after trilogy Prometheus...
Scott = 7 Alien movies
Cameron = 5 Avatar
Bay= 5 Transformers