I found on google that the budget was 65 M. Is that confirmed?
I'm no expert but sounds about right to me
Sounds believable.
If I was asked to guess I'd have said $60M, so that sounds about right to me.
Higher than I thought TBH, no actors of significant note, no sets, newish Director, hardly any marketing...... I'd have thought $40 million tops considering The Predator was $88 Million.
Quote from: Highland on Sep 07, 2022, 12:22:09 AMHigher than I thought TBH, no actors of significant note, no sets, newish Director, hardly any marketing...... I'd have thought $40 million tops considering The Predator was $88 Million.
Yeah I'm the same. Considering AVP 2 was $40 and that was in a town
Location shooting (transport, accommodation), COVID compliance restrictions, some pretty hefty camera rigging. Lots of special effects.
Annihilation's budget was about 50 million with notable actors, better sets, more effects and a proven Director.
Straight to streaming there's no way they went past 40 mill IMO ( I think even less probably). They shot for like 8 weeks in Calgary.
Maybe Dan will answer this in the pod.
Inflation ?
Maybe, I doubt that much though. Looking at ghostbusters after life, that was $75 million.
Obi-wan was 90 million with fairly notable actors and a shit ton of CGI, plus it was 4 times as long.... (and a ridiculous amount of advertising)
If it was $65 million for one suit and some touch ups, somebody got ripped :laugh: I don't care either way, I'll take 5 more low budget Predator movies if they come out like this one.
Quote from: Highland on Sep 08, 2022, 06:36:58 AMStraight to streaming
Irrelevant aside from advertising, but Annihilation got f**ked on that front too.
While it's absolutely possible it didn't cost 65, it very well could've and people's comparisons really aren't as remarkable as they seem to think.
There are a lot of factors that go into budget; saying "but this other production cost more" is just ... irrelevant, especially with productions shooting at the height of COVID compliance issues.
(Also it wasn't one suit. There were at least two people in the suit, and you have spares in case of damage. Each suit can cost upwards of 100,000.)
I don't think it's irrelevant given the quality and effects usage of those productions, the IP, who directed, who starred in it etc.
To put it short, if someone said we are going to make a Predator film with around 8-10 unknown actors (mostly first/second giggers?) with no sets, in a forest for 6-8 weeks and you told me that movie was gona cost $65 million bucks to produce....I dunno. I don't see where that type of cash has went on this particular movie. Even the effects look somewhat budget(ish).
Mando costs around 15 million an episode
..but I suppose we might never know, since the money it makes is also hard to quantify.
You don't see where that money goes because you don't budget movies.
8 weeks of production on a union movie on location is expensive. COVID compliance adds to that. There are dozens of people on set for eight weeks and they all get paid well. And then add loading for night shoots.
It's entirely irrelevant what another movie or show cost. Some movies cost peanuts and look like a hundred million dollars, others cost a hundred million dollars and look like peanuts.
There are so many factors that it's impossible to just look at one movie's budget and try to guess another's.
I think it was 6 suits btw. Dane mentions it in the podcast (which am editing).
Quote from: SiL on Sep 08, 2022, 12:03:16 PMYou don't see where that money goes because you don't budget movies.
8 weeks of production on a union movie on location is expensive. COVID compliance adds to that. There are dozens of people on set for eight weeks and they all get paid well. And then add loading for night shoots.
It's entirely irrelevant what another movie or show cost. Some movies cost peanuts and look like a hundred million dollars, others cost a hundred million dollars and look like peanuts.
There are so many factors that it's impossible to just look at one movie's budget and try to guess another's.
Well we will agree to disagree. There's definitely a point where a movie has a more expensive feel for one reason or another. If I'm watching a Witcher or House of the Dragon episode, I can feel where that budget is kicking in for example.
I'll agree though that prices have changed quite a bit in the last couple of years.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 08, 2022, 12:03:16 PMYou don't see where that money goes because you don't budget movies.
8 weeks of production on a union movie on location is expensive. COVID compliance adds to that. There are dozens of people on set for eight weeks and they all get paid well. And then add loading for night shoots.
It's entirely irrelevant what another movie or show cost. Some movies cost peanuts and look like a hundred million dollars, others cost a hundred million dollars and look like peanuts.
There are so many factors that it's impossible to just look at one movie's budget and try to guess another's.
I remember reading that one of the biggest reasons Gary Kurtz didn't produce Return of the Jedi was because George Lucas blamed him for how much more TESB cost than ANH did.
Kurtz pointed out years later that ANH was a lot cheaper because the cast and crew (and everyone else involved in the production at the time) didn't know they were making the biggest blockbuster in history.
When they got around to making TESB, everyone demanded "Star Wars money."
Quote from: Highland on Sep 09, 2022, 12:34:44 AMWell we will agree to disagree. There's definitely a point where a movie has a more expensive feel for one reason or another. If I'm watching a Witcher or House of the Dragon episode, I can feel where that budget is kicking in for example.
I'll agree though that prices have changed quite a bit in the last couple of years.
Whether it has a more expensive feel often doesn't have much to do with the actual cost of making it. People can and have spent a lot of money making something that feels cheap, and a little money making something that feels expensive.
It's not really an "agree to disagree" situation; it's not a matter of opinion. One production's budget is completely irrelevant for guessing how much another production cost.
One would think Alien 3 cost less than Aliens looking at the lack of action scenes, minimal effects sequences, and the rod puppet. But it cost twice as much.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 09, 2022, 01:11:32 AMQuote from: Highland on Sep 09, 2022, 12:34:44 AMWell we will agree to disagree. There's definitely a point where a movie has a more expensive feel for one reason or another. If I'm watching a Witcher or House of the Dragon episode, I can feel where that budget is kicking in for example.
I'll agree though that prices have changed quite a bit in the last couple of years.
Whether it has a more expensive feel often doesn't often have much to do with the actual cost of making it. People can and have spent a lot of money making something that feels cheap, and a little money making something that feels expensive.
It's not really an "agree to disagree" situation; it's not a matter of opinion. One production's budget is completely irrelevant for guessing how much another production cost.
One would think Alien 3 cost less than Aliens looking at the lack of action scenes, minimal effects sequences, and the rod puppet. But it cost twice as much.
You are debating a point by your admission that you don't know yourself. So yes it's very much an agree to disagree :laugh:
Given that there is no final estimation of the movie's budget apart from one niche site on google so at this point it could be 30 million, could be 70 million. I'm just saying I don't think this feels like a $65 mill production based on the final product and the shooting details. The sites i've seen it state 65 million are like Wiki etc.
It could well be $65 million, who knows.
I'm saying I don't know what the budget is, not that I don't know if we can use one film to judge another.
I could see it being cheaper or more or exactly that. But not because some other project was cheaper or more or exactly that.
I think aside from the opticals, Alien³ looks way more expensive than Aliens did, in fact I think James Cameron's picture's easily the flattest looking of the six.
Quote from: BlueMarsalis79 on Sep 09, 2022, 02:51:14 AMI think aside from the opticals, Alien³ looks way more expensive than Aliens did, in fact I think James Cameron's picture's easily the flattest looking of the six.
I think the thing with older films is that the films are good because of what you don't see and how clever the directors were back then. Jaws is a good example ( and the overly expensive bad sequels)
I like to think that Dan and the squad were given a fairly tight budget and the resulting movie is testament to what you can do with a good story and competent directors, you don't need squillions.
Alien 3 looks like it could've comfortably cost about $20m in 1990 money. The extra $35m are not on screen.
Quote from: Highland on Sep 09, 2022, 03:21:31 AMI like to think that Dan and the squad were given a fairly tight budget and the resulting movie is testament to what you can do with a good story and competent directors, you don't need squillions.
Before the film came out people were saying it didn't have a tight budget. The behind the scenes shots seem to support it. Some of those camera rigs are not cheap.
I think whilst true, Alien³ still looks a fair bit more expensive than Aliens to me again the opticals aside.
The cinematography's nicer but a movie with a handful of people in rags in tight corridors with a single Alien does not look like $55 million if you realise Aliens was $18m, and Alien was only $11m.
Still proves my point that you can't judge a film's budget based on another production. There are too many factors.
Like Weaver getting "You won't make this movie without me" money, and Beihn getting paid more for a photo than his entire role on the previous film.
Almost none of that applies to this movie though which is my point. There are no actors, there's almost nobody of of any note in any department worked on this film ( no disrespect, I think they did an incredible job) unless you count Dan which is still not massive. Even the score was done by a relativity unknown composer, where as The Predator was scored by Henry Jackman who while no Hanz Zimmer, is a very established movie composer.
The CGI effects are probably close to decent TV level..... (again no criticism, but they just are)
The "other factors" you are counting are something every other production would have to have factored in. Unless Canada is just extremely expensive to shoot in.
Anyway I feel this is one of those circular convo's that won't lead anywhere!
You don't know what went into the production but you're the one who seems weirdly convinced it must have been cheap.
Like, what difference does it make to you if the movie cost $65m? Would it affect your enjoyment of it? Why do you like to think that they had a tight budget?
I'm just confused why this is even a discussion. You not seeing the money on screen doesn't mean it wasn't spent.
Well it's the budget discussion thread. :o
Wouldn't effect my enjoyment one bit. I think they likely had a tight budget because this film is very unique in the franchise with how it was produced, I don't think it's a massive controversy to think that.
The real unique aspects of how it was made - COVID - would make it more expensive. Transport, accommodation, logistics.
There's a lot of expensive camera gear on site, lots of speaking roles, lots of effects and stunts. Lots of crew.
Depending on the number of people on set they could've burned through almost a million a week just in payroll.
Cheap movies on tight budgets generally do not have so many camera cranes out on location.
I've seen worse VFX in movies with three times the suggested budget. The fact they had money to burn on cosmetic "enhancements" on the suit despite the fact it looked just fine kind of speak to them having disposable income.
I look at the behind the scenes and I see a loooot of money. Which absolutely they could've got things affordably - like I said, maybe it was cheaper - but I don't flinch when someone says it cost $65m. I buy it.
There's also an interesting question I should've put in the ask Dan thread - did going direct to streaming affect cast and crew pay? Usually there would be percentages and residuals. Key cast and crew may have been paid extra to account for lack of ticket revenue.
I think the movie looks cheap in places, but the production does not look cheap to me.
I think SiL has a point
Quote from: Highland on Sep 09, 2022, 05:36:05 AMWell it's the budget discussion thread. :o
Also for the record I just meant I don't know why it's a discussion that two film's budgets really have nothing to do with each other.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 09, 2022, 07:09:30 AMQuote from: Highland on Sep 09, 2022, 05:36:05 AMWell it's the budget discussion thread. :o
Also for the record I just meant I don't know why it's a discussion that two film's budgets really have nothing to do with each other.
Well it was more along the lines of most predator films in the franchise, actually all the films, have fairly big(ish) names when it comes to the actors, the score, the effects, the directors, the marketing and the cinema release ( I disagree this an effects heavy film in comparison to the other entries but perhaps that's a different debate), whilst this entry has quite clearly went for a different approach in almost every catagorie. It feels smaller, because it is smaller.
I would have assumed (not unfairly) that this Predator movie would have cost less than the others even adjusting for inflation.
Saying all of that $65 million isn't like crazy money, not if AVP (arguably a similar set up) was $40 million.
Quote from: SiL on Sep 09, 2022, 06:07:34 AMThere's also an interesting question I should've put in the ask Dan thread - did going direct to streaming affect cast and crew pay? Usually there would be percentages and residuals. Key cast and crew may have been paid extra to account for lack of ticket revenue.
I've already got something to that effect in there, don't worry! :)
This is a very VFX heavy film. A lot of it is invisible work, but it's there.
All the cloaking, most of the weaponry. There was a CGI double for the Predator for every scene to remove costume seams, add muscle movements. The river bear attack is partially a set that needed to be comped into a background. Wire removal galore.
All of the wild animals are obviously CGI. The dog's harnesses were removed with CGI. The fire from the torches when the hunters go looking for the mountain lion at night are CGI. I imagine all of the thermal vision is CGI.
Predator by comparison has very few FX shots, as old photochemical processes were expensive and time consuming in ways modern CGI isn't.
Colin Strause mentioned when making AvPR that your typical effects movie used to have less than 200 VFX shots, now the average is 400-500.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 09, 2022, 08:02:36 AMQuote from: SiL on Sep 09, 2022, 06:07:34 AMThere's also an interesting question I should've put in the ask Dan thread - did going direct to streaming affect cast and crew pay? Usually there would be percentages and residuals. Key cast and crew may have been paid extra to account for lack of ticket revenue.
I've already got something to that effect in there, don't worry! :)
Hurrah!
Quote from: Highland on Sep 09, 2022, 07:49:42 AMSaying all of that $65 million isn't like crazy money, not if AVP (arguably a similar set up) was $40 million.
Except that's AVPR budget. And that was almost two decades ago
AvP was $55 million (Anderson said "the same as A3" and A3 was reported as $55m) and saved millions by shooting in Prague with clever production design.
Quote from: Kradan on Sep 09, 2022, 08:42:16 AMQuote from: Highland on Sep 09, 2022, 07:49:42 AMSaying all of that $65 million isn't like crazy money, not if AVP (arguably a similar set up) was $40 million.
Except that's AVPR budget. And that was almost two decades ago
I actually did mean AVPR. The comparison was for the similarities of both movies as far as what they used.
Requiem looks cheap as f**k tho
Requiem moved production to a new location every 2-3 days. That shit eats money.
They also finished ahead of schedule allowing them to do the homeworld section for Wolf.
So they burned a lot of money while also not spending everything they had so they could add more stuff the film didn't need.
No wonder it looked cheap.
Quote from: Kradan on Sep 09, 2022, 11:25:19 AMRequiem looks cheap as f**k tho
Well that's mostly because the people in charge weren't very compitant. Predators was around the same and looked good with some well known actors.
I didn't think they'd (the studio) take another punt at that kind of premium, not after the disaster that was "The Predator".
Especially straight to TV, but its worked for them and hopefully we will reap the benefits 8)
Quote from: Highland on Sep 09, 2022, 01:16:13 PM[Predators was around the same and looked good with some well known actors.
Predators is a better example to compare it to. I'm leaning towards inflation
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Sep 09, 2022, 08:02:36 AMQuote from: SiL on Sep 09, 2022, 06:07:34 AMThere's also an interesting question I should've put in the ask Dan thread - did going direct to streaming affect cast and crew pay? Usually there would be percentages and residuals. Key cast and crew may have been paid extra to account for lack of ticket revenue.
I've already got something to that effect in there, don't worry! :)
There is already an avenue to compensate key cast and crew that are entitled to extra pay (which means, really, above-the-line talent), and that is the 2020 DGA and SAG-AFTRA agreement that is, in part, specifically written to address situations where the distributor (the streamer) is also the studio (the producer), meaning that the film will bypass ticket sales. It contains a Hollyweird calculation that imputes a residual amount based on a comparison case with a similar film/series in which distributor and studio are different (in order to avoid accusations of "self dealing." E.g. Disney charges Disney+ an exceptionally low license fee thereby lowering the residuals owed to DGA / SAG-AFTRA workers. Obviously, such a method is ripe for abuse because Disney and Disney+ are the same company).
IOW such payments are kept well clear of the production budget, just like they normally are.
However, the WGA felt this calculation was rather opaque and dodgy so took Netflix and Amazon to arbitration to recover unfairly lowballed residual calculations and negotiate a new deal for its members, different than the DGA and SAG-AFTRA one. They just won their case against Amazon this month. Big payday for screenwriters.
https://deadline.com/2022/09/writers-guild-amazon-residuals-settlement-1235110384/
TC