In the Lacklusters vs. Blockbusters thread I brought up Orlando Bloom, noting that as a leading man, his box office take was rather lackluster.
But to me, the more interesting piece of information was the budget numbers for the film Elizabethtown: $57 million!
Huh? Kirstin Dunst was the highest paid performer on that set at $8,000,000, more than double what Orlando Bloom was paid ($3 million). Susan Sarandon was probably paid a like amount.
So, that’s $14 million on the stars, leaving another $43 million largely unaccounted for.
I’ve seen Elizabethtown. It’s a nice little movie, nothing spectacular except for the Hawtness that is Ms. Dunst. I just can’t figure how the hell the thing cost $43 million before you pay the three leads. Where did the money go? It certainly didn’t go onscreen!
So, in this vein, what movies seem to cost a helluva lot more (or less) than you’d expect?
As a bonus, if you can suss out how that film cost $57 million, I’d be really interested in your take. Primo blow imported straight from Columbia, and high-price call girls flown in from Vegas is all I can figure.
I do note that Box Office Mojo puts the budget at a slightly less insane $45 million, but that still leaves about $31 million spent on… something. It’s not as if Louisville, KY is a high-priced location shoot or anything.
*Ishtar *is the most famous example of this. The discrepancy between what the movie cost and what it looked like is the major reason critics had it in for what’s essentially a pretty funny buddy movie and political satire. The huge budget was spent almost entirely on location, but the locations were mostly just sand. Instead of saving money and filming it on California sand, they spent millions filming it on North African sand. But sand looks like sand, so Elaine May’s straightforward, nearly documentary style–her films feel a lot like Cassavetes movies–just didn’t jibe with the huge Hollywood budget. Unfortunately, this cost one of the greatest living American directors the greater part of a career, which of course is to our, the audience’s, cost. Imagine the great movies Elaine May could’ve made in the last 22 years if critics hadn’t put her in director’s jail for life (thanks to Cervaise for that image).
Cloverfield is a good one, a film where you’d think they probably blew another $100 million, but actually was a very good value.
Rush Hour 3, OTOH, had a budget of $140 million. Who would commit $140m to a Chris Tucker movie? Yeah, Paris is an expensive location, but still… $140 million?
Evan Almighty is even more egregious, with budget numbers between $175m and $200m. It’s hard to imagine as you watch that piece of crap (I saw it, but I had a 6 year-old girl at the time, and it was her first drive-in experience, so I can Blame It On The Kid) that the film cost as much as Titanic.
The Star Wars prequels, by contrast, look like models of fiscal restraint, each of them coming in around $115 million.
I wasnt up on movie inflation up to this point, but yeah when you put it in that context, they do seem really out of proportion (and I havent even seen the above two films)
Serenity was made on a budget of $39 Million, but could easily have passed as $75 million movie. To be fair, it has no huge stars in it, but it’s a great Sci-Fi film and has good effects.
Nope, it came out the speakers. Songs played on the radio or released on CDs have a fixed “compulsory” payment rate. But to play the same song in a movie the price is…whatever the rights owner asks. It is very possible that all the rest of the budget went to pay for songs, of which there were quite a lot.
I think Heaven’s Gate is still considered the winner in “wherever the money went, it’s not on the screen”.
Cimino just lost control. He spent money foolishly for things that made no sense. He didn’t have costumes made for the characters; he insisted on buying authentic historical clothing for them (including crowd scenes). His sets were completely authentic; Cimino had the interiors of all the buildings completely furnished even though no scenes were filmed inside these buildings (Cimino even had items placed inside drawers and closets). After the main street of the town had been built, Cimino decided he didn’t like the width of the street and wanted it four feet wider. The carpenters said they could tear down the buildings on the north or the south side of the street and rebuild them four feet further back. Cimino said no - he liked the center of the street where it was so he had them tear down the buildings on both sides and rebuilt them all two feet back.
Advertising is usually an above-the-line expense, meaning that the figures quoted are what it cost to make the movie, not to promote it (or make prints for all the theaters). P&A expenses (prints and advertising) can run to double the movies budget, meaning that Elizabethtown likely cost close to $80 million to make ($45-57 million), produce, and advertise on a global scale.
Heh! That reminds me…anyone else see that documentary “Final Cut,” about the making of this one? I think it was on Bravo, originally—and I’m pretty sure it’s still on YouTube.
And at the risk of being glib about it, seeing and hearing about Cimino’s approach, I can’t help but wonder if it was all artistic fixation, or it was a sign of being obsessive…and/or compulsive, if ya get me.
Who would commit $140m to a Chris Tucker movie? Yeah, Paris is an expensive location, but still… $140 million?