Budget

[SiL]

Well it's the budget discussion thread. 

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.

[Highland]

Well it's the budget discussion thread. 

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.

[Corporal Hicks]

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've already got something to that effect in there, don't worry!

[SiL]

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.

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've already got something to that effect in there, don't worry!

Hurrah!

[Kradan]

Saying 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

[SiL]

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.

[Highland]

Saying 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.

[Kradan]

Requiem looks cheap as f**k tho

[SiL]

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.

[Highland]

Requiem 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 

[Kradan]

[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

[TC]

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'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