Big budget films...wheres all the money going?

[Sentinel X]

So I heard Robin Hood cost 200 million to make (Yes, Robin Hood). Which got me wondering were is the money for these huge budget films going...RH looks like it was made for 80 million or so. QOS cost 230 and it looks nowhere NEAR that. Superman Returns 232, Iron Man 186, etc...I can go on.

On the contrary films like the Lord of the Rings movies and The matrix sequels (each with an approx 100 million per film average) seemed to have used there budget wisely and look more expensive then their actual budgets. Maybe back-to-back filming does save a considerable amount of money?
I just think its shocking that so much money is being thrown at these films and the products are less than satisfying. Avatar was made for 230 million...but at least you can see where the money went. I cant say the same for 75% of movies on this list: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php

 

[terry78]

Salaries, sets, CG. Marketing.

 

[redfirebird2008]

In the case of Bond, location shooting is expensive. In the case of Robin Hood, recreating period piece costumes, sets, etc. can get pretty expensive. And don't forget Crowe is one of the most overpaid actors on the planet.

 

[dark_b]

how come milk is today more expensive then 6 years ago?

how come bread is more expensive then 6 years ago?

 

[bullets]

I think they built a special villa for Costner during Water world , then he bought some machine that's gonna save the world.



Singer liked to shoot some really expensive scenes for Superman Returns and then not use them.



Aside from Crowe probably being paid 30 million to make the film then you have a production team that consists of a million people . Also the scene at the beach looked expensive.

 

[Octoberist]

I think the development for Robin Hood was costly because they went through so many rewrites with different writers. all in a short time table too.

 

[matrix_ghost]

So I heard Robin Hood cost 200 million to make (Yes, Robin Hood). Which got me wondering were is the money for these huge budget films going...RH looks like it was made for 80 million or so. QOS cost 230 and it looks nowhere NEAR that. Superman Returns 232, Iron Man 186, etc...I can go on.

On the contrary films like the Lord of the Rings movies and The matrix sequels (each with an approx 100 million per film average) seemed to have used there budget wisely and look more expensive then their actual budgets. Maybe back-to-back filming does save a considerable amount of money?
I just think its shocking that so much money is being thrown at these films and the products are less than satisfying. Avatar was made for 230 million...but at least you can see where the money went. I cant say the same for 75% of movies on this list: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php

Robin Hood "official" number is 110 million wich if you've seen the movie does look like a 100 million dollar flick. THe 200 million number is a combination of the 110 million actually spend to make this movie as well as the amount of money spend to bring the previous versions of the movie to the screen. Do a little googling on NOttingham. That was the original version of Robin Hood which thru script rewrites etc was then changed to this.
It's like with Superman Returns where many sites also include the 50 million spend on failed superman projects.


In QOS case the budget increase was more about the fact that the studio had to extra cash for VFX shots to be finished in time for the release date.
Why they didn't push back the release date is anyone's guess ( altough i think it may be due to sceduling conflicts where the actors would be needed to promote QOS while they were mid-way shooting another movie).
That was also one of the main reasons why the 3rd POTC movie has a budget of 300 million.


For LOTR and The matrix sequels , i think it's more about the fact that the the VFX shots were planned well in advance . FOr example FX work on the burly brawl sequence began in 2000 with actual animation beginning in somewhere mid-2001 . That's 2 years for one sequence. Most VFX heavy blockbusters these days have a post. prod period of 6-9 months.
With LOTR it's the same as well as
1) the team at WETA worked overtime to finish all the shots . For free
2) they didn't have cast that demanded huge salaries

 

[marvelman2006]

well when you take into account the following:

Actor salaries
cgi effects
food and beverage service
all help on movie set from interns to camera operators and such
renting or trailers you always see on lots and locations.
location shoots
marketing for said film

it all adds up pretty quick when you do a run down. but yes some movies still look like crap and are crap even though so much money is sunk into them. what I dont get is these companies take loans that are $100 million plus and sometimes they make alittle over what it cost back so without money made from toys etc it looks like on paper they didnt make that much back. it just seems like a business that is setup to fail and end up having a big ass loan to pay back to the bank.

 

[terry78]

When you see a comedy movie that's not an action or fantasy but costs like 150 million, you know where the bulk of that went.

 

[BlackLantern]

not to mention permits for filming, depending on location...those run pretty steep too

 

[chaseter]

how come milk is today more expensive then 6 years ago?

how come bread is more expensive then 6 years ago?

That wasn't his point. He is asking how a film that cost 200 million dollars doesn't look like it cost that much and how films that cost considerably less look a lot better and are better films. He wants to know what happens to bloated budgets.

 

[BlackLantern]

a lot of it is behind the camera....personnel, permits, travel, lodging, animal rentals (if needed) extras, marketing, advertisements

 

[mclay18]

And don't forget Crowe is one of the most overpaid actors on the planet.

And he's a drama queen. The male version of Nicole Kidman, hardly any of his recent films were hits (let alone break even). The only actors worth their asking price is DiCaprio, Blanchett and Streep.

 

[redfirebird2008]

The only actors worth their asking price is DiCaprio, Blanchett and Streep.

Nope. Depp is the only one worth his asking price. Look what he just did with Alice in Wonderland. That movie had no business making $1 billion, but thanks to the Captain Jack marketing by Disney it became a massive hit.

 

[mclay18]

Nope. Depp is the only one worth his asking price. Look what he just did with Alice in Wonderland. That movie had no business making $1 billion, but thanks to the Captain Jack marketing by Disney it became a massive hit.

I didn't mean it like that. Stars need to be flexible, they just can't demand their usual paycheck nowadays with everyone tightening their budgets. And I included those three actors since 1) they are willing to take a pay cut/take backend deals if they really believe in a low-budget project and 2) they always deliver, acting-wise.

And Depp is a proven brand -- if you're making a POTC sequel or if Tim Burton wants him for his next film. Public Enemies didn't exactly light up the box office.

 

[BlackLantern]

but salary is a small part of it....look at ROTF and filming in Egypt....or films that shut down NYC streets to film...that stuff costs some coin

 

[redfirebird2008]

I didn't mean it like that. Stars need to be flexible, they just can't demand their usual paycheck nowadays with everyone tightening their budgets. And I included those three actors since 1) they are willing to take a pay cut/take backend deals if they really believe in a low-budget project and 2) they always deliver, acting-wise.

And Depp is a proven brand -- if you're making a POTC sequel or if Tim Burton wants him for his next film. Public Enemies didn't exactly light up the box office.

Depp is flexible though. He doesn't demand $20m per movie like Crowe and Denzel. Denzel is another ridiculously overpaid actor BTW. He's great, but he's always in movies that don't make anywhere near enough to justify his salary.

 

[mclay18]

but salary is a small part of it....look at ROTF and filming in Egypt....or films that shut down NYC streets to film...that stuff costs some coin

Yeah, that too. And the amount of CGI used in big-budget films is also a money-eater.

For a movie like The Black Dahlia (which was shot mostly in Bulgaria), it was made for $50M and had an all-star cast. And it looked like it was made for 3X that much. Some studios and directors need to be more creative and cost-effective.

 

[Evil Twin]

Streep is probably underpaid for the big, hollywood films she's done the last few summers. Streep only makes about $5 to $8 million for a big film. And she's one of the biggest reasons for the success of The Devil Wears Prada, Mamma Mia!, and Julie & Julia.

Shooting on location, shutting down city streets, with full union crews is certainly a big reason for expense. Not too many films shoot on studio backlots any more.

I tend to think that studios don't give enough time for special effects work too. When you hear about the effects houses working around the clock to complete a movie in time for a release date, complete with untold hours of overtime, you have to wonder if they would have gotten a better result for less money if they just had started the project 3 months earlier.

 

[BlackLantern]

3 months extra = more money....a lot of times the VFX guys are waiting on dailies and can't do anything until they get that stuff

 

[terry78]

If you're a player in Hollywood, you either have the connections to get **** done on the cheap, or you have enough bank to finance part or all of it on your own.

 

[GhostPoet]

I have one word for you.



Starbucks.

 

[Thundarr]

I have one word for you.



Starbucks.

Yeah that'll do it, lol.

 

[xwolverine2]

even studios can get ripped off

 

[Kevin Roegele]

It's amazing how some relatively inexpensive films can look great, and vice versa.

You know Aliens was made for $10M? Oh yeah. That's $7m less than Masters of the Universe.