The Wolverine The Wolverine to be Filmed in Australia

[psylockolussus]

Sorry, what?

Sometimes, its good for movies to have a lower budget. Like even if it performs just okay ($100 to $150 million), it wouldn't be a big box-office disappointment compare to the movies that had a $200 million budget.

 

[Silvermoth]

That's wonderful news that they're filming in Japan. I just got back from there myself a couple of hours ago! It makes me think Fox is actually taking this seriously and not just going for the cheap option.

 

[gkokujin]

Tom Rothman just Confirmed it will shoot in japan

he said the stage work will be done in Sydney but the Location shooting will be done in japan
http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/763599/the-wolverine-will-shoot-in-japan.jhtml

and Wolverine fans worldwide breathe a collective sigh of relief

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

80mil is a terrible budget for this kind of movie. and forget about the fact Logan is the only mutant in the film, the recent Conan the Barbarian movie had a 90mil budget and that looked like sh** most of the time. The 1st X-Men film had a 75mil budget and that was released 12 years ago!

About the only thing that I can think of that put the low budget in a good light is...they are gonna go all out with the crazy besreker wolverien in this one, to make up for Origins, and they are gonna bump the rating up to whatever the hell you yanks have as ratings, a '17' or whatever it is, it would go from a '12' to a '15' or '18' over here in the UK.
there was a story on the front page of the site where Rothman said they were going all out with Wolverine this time, he has bs'd before, but hopefully, he has had a change in attitude since XM:Fc got so many plaudits and did well.

 

[psylockolussus]

FOX's 2012 movie Chronicle only had less than $50 million for the budget and that movie was good and it didn't look cheap at all.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine had $150 million budget but the cinematography looked cheap to be honest.

Its not always about the budget.

 

[def28]

The equipment and locations that The Wolverine will use will be much more expensive then Chronicle. They wont shoot half The Wolverine on an mini dv cam. Found footage movies are always cheaper productions.

80 million should be fine for this film. Saying lower budget is better on movies like this has yet to be proven.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

FOX's 2012 movie Chronicle only had less than $50 million for the budget and that movie was good and it didn't look cheap at all.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine had $150 million budget but the cinematography looked cheap to be honest.

Its not always about the budget.

Agreed. It's about having a true vision. Not creating something based on others expectaions (fans or studios). Whether that be a film which costs $80 m or one that cost $150 m.

It will be interesting to see what Trank does with a bigger budget, like if he did FF for example.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

FOX's 2012 movie Chronicle only had less than $50 million for the budget and that movie was good and it didn't look cheap at all.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine had $150 million budget but the cinematography looked cheap to be honest.

Its not always about the budget.

I don't know what you mean by 'the cinematography looked cheap', if you think that aspect looked cheap, it was because it was shot crap, not because of a budgetery reason.
I thought it was shot just fine, and XMO:W looked like it had actually spent it's budget, sure there was a couple of outdoor scenes that looked like sh***y sets...the shanty town in Africa, when the team walk through it, the little houses looked like wooden boards stuck up with a lightbulb set up behind them... and the outdoor forest when waxatronic Xavier showed up looked fake, but those were short scenes, so forgiveable they did not splash out.

The effects looked fine apart from the infamous Roger Rabbit shaving in the bathroom scene, and there was a healthy amount of action set pieces.
It sure as hell looked more like a 150mil movie than Thor.

Anyway, it will be more of a martial arts extravaganza action wise, so the set pieces will not be as grandly expensive.

 

[Celestial]

Back to theo riginal news item:

Deputy Premier Andrew Stoner, who helped secure the deal with 20th Century Fox when he flew to Los Angeles in January, said winning the film would generate more than 2000 jobs for Sydney.


"The Wolverine is expected to generate more than $80 million in production expenditure in NSW and create more than 720 jobs for NSW-based cast and crew, along with opportunities for 1200 extras," he said.

That sounds like the A$80m (US$84m) is just the estimated production cost in Australia and doesn't include Japan or the production work done in the US.

 

[Chef Mikey]

Sometimes, its good for movies to have a lower budget. Like even if it performs just okay ($100 to $150 million), it wouldn't be a big box-office disappointment compare to the movies that had a $200 million budget.

Yeah Just see: Wrath of the Titans, Sucker Punch and Immortals...

 

[psylockolussus]

Yeah Just see: Wrath of the Titans, Sucker Punch and Immortals...

Huh? those movies didn't even get $100 million in the domestic box-office.

 

[BoredGuy]

Huh? those movies didn't even get $100 million in the domestic box-office.

That was...exactly the point, i think.

The effects looked fine apart from the infamous Roger Rabbit shaving in the bathroom scene, and there was a healthy amount of action set pieces.
It sure as hell looked more like a 150mil movie than Thor.

What in the helllllll are you talking about???
The special effects throughout XO:W were absolutely awful.
for example: Wolvie's claws when he tells Sabertooth he'll cut his head off, that bathroom scene, the hummer chase, any moment featuring Gambit, Emma Frost, Blob.. I could go on and on
Thor looked much nicer for it's budget than Wolverine did, and that was a movie about a GOD and different realms, it had way more to spread that budget out on.

XO:W had claws. And they failed at that. Miserably.