Budget

Started by David, Sep 06, 2022, 09:11:59 AM

Author
Budget (Read 2,321 times)

Highland

Highland

#15
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. 

Local Trouble

Local Trouble

#16
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."

SiL

SiL

#17
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.

Highland

Highland

#18
Quote from: SiL on Sep 09, 2022, 01:11:32 AM
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 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.

SiL

SiL

#19
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.

BlueMarsalis79

BlueMarsalis79

#20
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.

Highland

Highland

#21
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.

SiL

SiL

#22
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.

BlueMarsalis79

BlueMarsalis79

#23
I think whilst true, Alien³ still looks a fair bit more expensive than Aliens to me again the opticals aside.

SiL

SiL

#24
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.

Highland

Highland

#25
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!

SiL

SiL

#26
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.

Highland

Highland

#27
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.

 

SiL

SiL

#28
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.

Kradan

Kradan

#29
I think SiL has a point

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News