Saw this factoid here - Man on the Moon (film) - Wikipedia. I have not seen the movie but it cannot have been that wildy expensive to shoot real life scenes of him in bars, TV shows and nightclubs per his development as an artist. Why is the movie so incredibly expensive sans any high end special effects?
How in the world did the movie "Man on the Moon" about Andy Kaufmans's life cost 82 million dollars?
We can only assume that a large chunk of the budget went to Jim Carey. As your cite says “…a string of Jim Carrey films that had very successful opening nights” which normally means that his asking price went up, as he had been considered sure-fire box office. He earned $20 million for The Cable Guy.
There were a few wrestling scenes that required a lot of extras and large venues. In addition to Carey’s paycheck they also had Courtney Love and Danny Devito who were at the height of their acting careers and likely demanding a high price.
Jerry Lawler played himself in the movie, and probably didn’t come cheap. Probably nowhere near what Carrey made, but a nice payday. Same for Letterman. Jim Ross kinda sorta played Lance Russell…really just did his usual announcer thing, did not appear to make much of an attempt to resemble Russell in voice or mannerism.
Don’t underestimate the licensing rights for the material from TAXI, which the filmmaker would have had to buy since it’s a critical part of conveying Kaufman’s story. I imagine all the cameos from the stars weren’t cheap either.
But I think the big answer is advertising. MOON was written by the team who created ED WOOD and THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT, both of which scored major nominations at the Oscars (MOON’s director Milos Forman earned a nod for FLYNT himself). MOON was positioned as the film that would finally score Carrey some Academy cred (especially from those who thought he was overlooked for THE TRUMAN SHOW). Celebrity biopics had served others well around that time, so there would’ve been a boatload of money in trade ads, commercials, Academy screeners, etc. to try to position him and the film for an Oscar run.
It didn’t work. While Carrey did get a Globe for the film, he wasn’t a stranger to the Globes (he’d won one for TRUMAN, too). But Oscar did not come calling. I suspect that accounts for a sizable share of that figure.
Lorne Michaels also played himself, didn’t he?
I seriously doubt Jerry Lawler commanded a high price. Same for Lorne Michaels. The film was made exactly when Jim Carrey was at critical mass. His comedies raked in millions on modest budgets, and this was his first foray into ‘artsy’ material, so he could name his price. Plus, this wasn’t a 2nd rate production, Milos Foreman is as A-list as you can get. Personally I loved the film. I thought he captured Kaufman perfectly, and demonstrated how Kaufman was literally at least 20 years ahead of his time in terms of comedy.
But it was a little too much for audiences to take, especially his ‘Ace Ventura/Mask’ fans.
I do wonder about this re “20 years ahead of his time” claim. If Kaufman had the same act today re his more transgressive stunts he would (IMO) be treated pretty much the same. A man reading “The Great Gatsby” all the way through instead of telling jokes is not going to be any more appealing to most audiences today than it was then.
Not to mention two Best Director wins (in two Best Picture winners) under his belt, for One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Amadeus. You couldn’t get more prestigious than Forman.
OTOH, Kaufman would have thrived on the internet.
But people saying it is definitely hilarious. Some would say almost Kaufman-esque.
Also marketing and song licensing.
The basic cost of filming a typical movie is probably something like 5-10 million dollars - meaning the crew, equipment, studio time and minor actors. Could be more or less if you’re cutting corners or working in a difficult location. Anything much beyond that probably went on big name actors, VFX, expensive sets and marketing.
(Please correct me if you know better - I did a couple of classes that covered this but it was years ago)
I don’t know if the specific issues are the same, but here’s a thread from earlier this year on why Adam Sandler films cost so much (or don’t) to make.
I dunno. I seriously doubt that a youtube video of Andy Kaufman reading Great Gatsby would get more than a 4 digit number of hits. He needed a captive audience for those kinds of stunts.
Except the costs quoted in the trades and places like IMDb or Box Office Mojo are production, and don’t usually include P&A.
You’re missing the big picture. Andy Kaufman was a true ‘artist’, and I don’t often say that in a complimentary way. His art was everything, more than money, fame, ratings, everything. He had a true vision of extremely high-brow comedy at a time when the number one TV shows were *Laverne & Shirley *and *Three’s Company *(i.e. utter garbage). His Tony Clifton character alone, with him & Bob Zmuda pulling off an inside joke where they where the only two in the world in on the joke, is pure genius. And his wrestling woman, people were looking for the hidden, deeper meaning of it all, and there wasn’t any! It was just him wrestling someone weaker than him that he could beat. And his ridiculously over the top gloating, telling the woman to go *“Back to the kitchen!” *or telling the hillbilly wrestling fans “This, is toilet paper!”, again people couldn’t see the forest for the trees. It was just flat out, politically incorrect (before the term even existed) childish mockery. And it was hilarious.
My argument was that it was not really “20 years ahead of it’s time” and your hagiographic vignette does nothing to change that opinion. An absurdist comic who is deliberately transgressive in the specific manner he was, would be no more accepted today than he was back then regardless of how much a genius you think he was.
His comedy may seem like meta-genius from a distance, but up close and personal I can easily see how it would come off as simply annoying to the immediate observers then and now.
If you think “Laverne & Shirley” was “utter garbage” I think you may be missing some elements of the big picture yourself. While the quality varied at the end it was a well regarded and solidly crafted show for many years within its genre.
The way I’ve always thought of it is that Kaufman was the first troll.
Okay, that may have been a bit too harse, I actually watched L&S (and Happy Days) thru most of its run, although I was just a kid and would never like it now. I did watch Three’s Company too, but even as a kid a found it too schticky and low-brow. My point was Kaufman was doing comedy that would not even come close to mainstream for decades. He was doing comedy in the 70s, the last days of godawful variety shows like Sonny & Cher, Tony Orlando etc. The whole idea that he never, ever, let his guard down, that he never admitted that everythiing he did, although it seemed at times that, ok this was him finally being real, in the end it was always part of the act. David Letterman was an early supporter of his, he appeared on Late Night several times in its first years. Letterman represented that direction of comedy, hip & self-mocking, just not quite so inaccessible. Although he fit in pretty well on SNL (he did his incredibly simple but hilarious Mighty Mouse song on the pilot) eventually he got voted off forever by that show’s fans! He was still too avant garde for the hippest comedy on 80s TV!
To each his own, several friends of mine were and still are baffled by Kaufman fans, they just describe him as an annoying, unfunny, asshole.
Re “My point was Kaufman was doing comedy that would not even come close to mainstream for decades” is where my main argument with your thesis is. Kaufman was an absurdist. The “funny” in his more transgressional performances was mainly accessible at a distance once the stunt was completed and the riling of the yokels was complete.
This behavior or comedy style is NOT accepted or celebrated today as mainstream comedy. People who would try to pull similar stunts today are not celebrated or embraced as comedy stars. Kaufman was unique, but his extremely transgressional comedy style is not embraced any more today than it was then.