Styrofoam_Guy wrote: ↑August 14th, 2019, 11:11 pmThose movies aren't accurate comparisons to a summer tentpole PG-13 sci-fi comedy based on a franchise. A better comparison might be the more recent Men in Black movies.RichardLess wrote: ↑August 14th, 2019, 7:16 amSo if this $170 million budget is true then where does the money go. How does it break down to actors/actress, equipment, food, hotels, costumes, props special effects etc.
Honestly? Same here. I thought the budget would be about 90 million. But I'm convinced that the 170 number(whether in CDN or not) is legit.
You know cellphone plans? For example something like 45 dollars gets something like 450 weekday minutes, 2 Gigs of Data and unlimited Eve and weekends? Well that's how *some* movies work a budget. Which is why you see a lot of movies with similar numbers. So, for example, 120 million dollars will you get X number of shooting days, with X Number of crew and X number of visual effect shots. Now it's not EXACTLY like that, but I was trying to find a way to describe why the 170 number makes sense to me and that's the best way I can describe it.
I was trying to find a comparable movie without lots of CGI special effects
2018 The Mule (directed and starred Clint Eastwood)
Budget $50 Million
I have not seen this movie so I would not think it has a lot of special effects or fancy props/ costumes. Besides Clint Eastwood I have not heard of any of the other actors in this movie.
2018 The Favourite (Starred Emma Stone)
Budget $15 Million
I did see this movie and it has a lot of costumes and props. I am not familiar with the director or other actors.
2018 Annihilation (stars Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh)
Budget $40-55 Million
I am not familiar with the director or other actors. A lot more special effects compared to the two movies above. Some props and costumes.
As a comparison Annihilation seems to be the movie closest to GB2020. Even at $120 Million compared to Annihilation where would the extra $60+ Million go? Salaries for the actors?
Would it be CGI SFX? I thought they were going to do as much practical SFX as possible?
The Favourite has loads of costumes and props and only cost $15 Million. Granted there weren't many explosions in this movie but a $100+ Million difference?
So we know GB2020 is working with kids and doing lots of location work. Kids can only work so many hours which limits production time which increases production length and length=money. Location work is also very expensive. Every business that closes, every road that closes, costs money. You've got to feed the crew, house the crew.
Practical effects can actually be more costly than CGI. Christopher Nolan is someone who likes to avoid CGI and his movies are routinely 100 million dollar plus. Interstellar cost about 170. Inception cost 160. The Dark Knight Rises cost 250 million(which is insane).
Some directors are known to get more bang for their buck than others. You mentioned Clint Eastwood. He's known for his very efficient shooting style and doing things very quickly. Michael Bay, who works with some very high budgets, is known for really using his budget wisely. Some productions you can see where the money went, others, like The Dark Knight Rises, blow my mind that they cost so much. Christopher Nolan doesn't use a 2nd Unit like most films, which means he shoots everything himself, so his films tend to cost more. Some directors, like Gore Verbsinki, have a very particular visual aesthetic and that aesthetic needs to be streamlined throughout the entire production. That's means lighting rigs, props, lenses, costumes, make up, everything needs to have a very specific function and look. That raises the budget.
Here's an example I use sometimes. So has everyone seen Hellboy 2? The Golden Army? That movie cost 80 million dollars. It looks like a 150 million dollar film. Easily. There's lots of great CGI, make up, animatronics, big set pieces...the works. It came out in 2008. Same year as Iron Man(which cost about 175-180 million) and The Dark Knight(185 million). I'd say Hellboy 2 has more production value on screen than either of those 2 movies. That doesn't mean those movies are bad. I love Iron Man. But Guilemoro Del Toro knows where to spend his money.
The very first Deadpool cost 50-60 million dollars. It looks like a 100 million dollar movie.
So? How can some movies look more expensive than they are? Planning is a big one. Minimal location work is another. Speed is another. Some directors only do a few setups per day. Directors like Michael Bay and GDT? 25-30 set ups a day. They work hard, they work fast. They work with the same crew over time. Trust and a shorthand get developed. The director of the first Deadpool came from the video game/visual effects world. He owns his own company. So he knew what was required and what wasn't. How many shots he needed to be CGI, what needed to be mocapped. How they could get more for less. And it worked.