The Cost of Movies (Production)

[Grapes Of Wrath]

i was just reading that Mars Needs Moms (2011) had a budget of over $150 million.......

and as of today its made back about $16 million lol

it got me thinking of other massive flops like Evan Almighty..

does anyone have or have seen a breakdown of where exactly all that money goes?
like how does an animated flick like Mars Needs Moms cost 150 million dollars?? where does the money actually go.. whos getting paid on a flop?

 

[Mcthuggin99]

oh shit i didnt think it would flop. dont really care though.

i forget how it is, but i think whatever the movie makes in the box office, the studio gets first, or unless one of the actors had it in their contract that they get a percentage of the profits, they get their share first

and as for the budget, it goes to getting sets made, getting actors and crew paid, promotion, cameras, all that nice shit.

 

[Grapes Of Wrath]

oh shit i didnt think it would flop. dont really care though.

i forget how it is, but i think whatever the movie makes in the box office, the studio gets first, or unless one of the actors had it in their contract that they get a percentage of the profits, they get their share first

and as for the budget, it goes to getting sets made, getting actors and crew paid, promotion, cameras, all that nice shit.

yea but thas what im sayin. its an animated flick
there are no real sets. locations etc..
how does an animated movie cost so much?
computer geeks must be walking away with SHITLOADS of money
like Avatar was $237 million to make..... wtf

 

[Cheaptimes]

Movies like Mars Needs Moms actually use actors, acting out the scenes. They have to wear these motion capture suits (with all the pingpong balls) which then get rendered into a computer and then blahblahblah animators then adjust details and what not.

Oh well, story wise that movie looked liked it was going to suck.

Seth Green Moves, but doesnt speak... (LA Times article on MNM)

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

yea but thas what im sayin. its an animated flick
there are no real sets. locations etc..
how does an animated movie cost so much?
computer geeks must be walking away with SHITLOADS of money
like Avatar was $237 million to make..... wtf

Rendering CGI takes a VERY long time. And when a movie is 100% CGI, well....you do the math. Time & labor + technology = $$$

 

[2-0-Sixx]

waste of money for such shitty movies.

with all that cash just cut the CGI out entirely, hire several top notch actors and a director, film in some grimy ass location and chances are it will be a dope movie.

 

[Rezin]

A lot of movies like these capitalize on merch more than anything....

But this one aint catching on......

 

[Grapes Of Wrath]

thats mind boggling numbers.. these CGI artists must walk away with ridiculous checks.. multiple commas.

because there cant be THAT many of them on one movie right?

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

waste of money for such shitty movies.

with all that cash just cut the CGI out entirely, hire several top notch actors and a director, film in some grimy ass location and chances are it will be a dope movie.

Good CGI, done right, can look quite amazing.

And for the record, i love all those Pixar movies...they are usually visually stunning and very good movies at the same time.

*shrugs*

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

thats mind boggling numbers.. these CGI artists must walk away with ridiculous checks.. multiple commas.

because there cant be THAT many of them on one movie right?

Im not sure about the number of people, but if you ever watch the credits to a movie, it will tell you who did what.

 

[Grapes Of Wrath]

lol i know.. thats what im saying..
if a movie cost $150 million to make
and the stars whatever got $10-20million each...
theres prolly like 600 names listed at the end of a movie..

someone must be walkin off with fat checks. like FATTTT checks.
i think were forgetting how much $150 million is

 

[Cheaptimes]

I think only Eddie Murphy made that kind of stupid money on shrek 3 or 4 for his voice.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Good CGI, done right, can look quite amazing.

yeah but often times it's not necessary. Other times it can be done a lot cheaper, District 9 for example was a $30 million dollar film, the CGI looked better than many CGI films with triple that budget and the movie was actually a really good film too.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

yeah but often times it's not necessary. Other times it can be done a lot cheaper, District 9 for example was a $30 million dollar film, the CGI looked better than many CGI films with triple that budget and the movie was actually a really good film too.

Hey, its not what you do, its how you do it. They pulled it off with a smaller budget. Shit happens.

They are the exception, not the rule.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

well it proves you can do really good CGI without having $100 million, like shitty ass clash of the titans or the countless other crap films

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I got into an argument with my dad because he didn't like District 9 but enjoyed Transformers 2. Toward the end of the argument, we pretty much settled on having different opinions, but then I added that, at the very least, he has to admit that the CGI was better on D9 than on TF2. At that point he tried making excuses for it by saying that D9 only ever showed the aliens in the dark or from far away, which is completely untrue. I finished by telling him that he needed to watch D9 again since his memory wasn't serving him well.

Anyway, I think it is quite a feat to have better special effects than a huge-budget blockbuster that's had the Industrial Light & Magic treatment.

And I agree. Clash of the Titans was garbage. There's another Greek myth movie in the works that I'm looking forward to entitled, "Immortals." It stars Henry Cavill (the soon-to-be Superman star) and is directed by the guy who made The Cell and The Fall. I can guarantee that even if Immortals isn't so good, it will be more interesting and have a visual style far, far surpassing the bland Clash of the Titans.

 

[NAMO]

its a big gamble, look at the shitty twilight series, two of its films made about 700 million each..

and its shit..

proof that if you gamble it can pay off, that is why they spend so much.

 

[0R0]

Most those actors aren't getting paid that much grapes. Not everyone is an Andy Serkis(who I'm sure has a big net worth from how many huge movies he's been in) or already well known name to warrant getting broke off a fat check.

This was one of the best breakdowns I saw whilst searching the interwebz.

http://ask.metafilter.com/121849/Why-the-CGI-expense

One of the reasons I think Avatar cost so much was that it used some fairly well known actors in it and on top of that it was using 3D that was more advanced(expensive) than the previous iterations of the technology. Also you gotta take into account paying for all the catering charges they have to comp. Big teams of animators ordering out for about 2 meals almost daily for extended periods of times would probably add up.

 

[Count_Slapula]

Advertisements and distributing costs alot of money up front as well..

 

[Infantry Elite]

movies are extremely expensive to make because EVERYONE that is involved in ANY way, gets paid. the 100 people they have walking down the street in ONE shot will get $500 each for a days work. and thats the minimum payment.

people that hold microphones get paid several hundred dollars an hour to stand there and hold a mic...and you gotta remember that some of these movies will have 180+ shooting days. if the boom mic operator is making $3000+ everyday, just imagine the total cost


might be somethin like $150mill :cheeky:

but yeah, CGI work and stuff like thats can take tens of thousands (literally) of hours to get done. im not sure what the ballpark hourly wage is, but if i had to guess i'd say $50 or more