# Why do movies cost so much more than TV? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 27, 2012, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901 "2012-01-27T20:22:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/1 "2012-01-27T20:22:36Z")
I recently read that a show like BSG cost something like 1.5M$ per episode. Not chump change, but considering the special effects, cast and 45 minute length, that’s much cheaper than most comparable movies. The same thing can be said of many TV shows and movies. Sometimes, I see that a movie cost 30 or 40 millions (excluding marketing costs) to make and I have difficulty seeing where the money went when I compare it to TV shows. This is especially the case when you compare romantic comedies and sitcoms. I understand that the actors tend to be paid more (they’re usually bigger names), there are likely more takes of each scene and more location shoots, all of which increase the production costs. Is the increased cost due to those three factors only or are there other factors? ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/2 "2012-01-27T21:32:17Z")
It’s a number of factors, but I’ll only post two. I’ll use BSG to illustrate. 1.) marketing. Roughly a third of a major motion picture’s budget goes to selling it. That means if the total budget is $100 mil (which is about average), they will spend over $30 mil on ads. The SyFy channel didn’t have to spend nearly that much money to promote BSG, because most of those ads are going to appear on their own network. 2.) Design / sets. Movies and TV shows both need to pay people to design the costumes, sew them, design the set and props, and build those. This can be very expensive and has to be an important reason why BSG seems so much cheaper than a comparable movie - BSG gets to reuse the set for every episode. It only costs $1.5 mil an episode because they already have all the sets and props. Just imagine what the cost would be like if they had to design and build a new set for every episode. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/3 "2012-01-29T08:30:29Z")
I’m bumping this, because this is too interesting a subject for me to have the last word. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/4 "2012-01-29T08:37:30Z")
Movies have much higher production costs. You already stated most of the reasons why, and **Monkey** has thrown in the marketing factor also. There are plenty of movies that cost no more to produce than a TV show of equal length. Now-a-days, I think these mostly go directly to TV, but back in the stone age they were a staple of drive-in movie theaters. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/5 "2012-01-29T09:13:20Z")
Why are CGI animated movies so expensive? Yet there are CGI TV shows that crank out an episode weekly, on a cable channel no less. EDIT: Wall-E cost 180 million! ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/6 "2012-01-29T09:23:51Z")
> [@A Monkey With a Gun](#): > > Movies and TV shows both need to pay people to design the costumes, sew them, design the set and props, and build those. This can be very expensive and has to be an important reason why BSG seems so much cheaper than a comparable movie - BSG gets to reuse the set for every episode. It only costs $1.5 mil an episode because they already have all the sets and props. Just imagine what the cost would be like if they had to design and build a new set for every episode. Moreover, TV shows can recycle props more easily than a movie can. The Pegasus set from BSG was recycled from an abandoned sequel to the Lost in Space movie. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/7 "2012-01-29T09:28:04Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Why are CGI animated movies so expensive? > > Yet there are CGI TV shows that crank out an episode weekly, on a cable channel no less. > > EDIT: Wall-E cost 180 million! Because all animation is very costly and takes a long, long time to produce. And you have to pay computer animators much more than hand animators. They usually have degrees and college loans and stuff. CGI elimates some of the frame by frame work required in hand animation, but there is much more time spent in initial modeling, and almost every movement and effect requires new code to be written. The weekly TV shows are generally a much lower quality of animation. Not necessarily less entertainment value though. Great animation requires more than great artwork. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/8 "2012-01-29T09:28:12Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Moreover, TV shows can recycle props more easily than a movie can. The Pegasus set from BSG was recycled from an abandoned sequel to the Lost in Space movie. I don’t see why it would be easier, why would it be harder to use unused sets from abandoned productions in a film? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/9 "2012-01-29T09:46:05Z")
> [@grude](#): > > I don’t see why it would be easier, why would it be harder to use unused sets from abandoned productions in a film? They are. But movie producers and directors often want a unique product. The Universal lot in Hollywood was designed so that the same sets could be filmed from different angles to produce thousands of visually distinct scenes. But in each movie, new signs are painted, and other elements are changed. Period movies go to varying lengths to provide congruous automobiles and costumes, while a TV show uses whatever is sitting in the stock rooms. It’s all about production quality. BTW: TV production is constantly getting more expensive. HDTV reveals much more than the old low def TVs, and to maintain an acceptable level of quality the costs continuously climb. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/10 "2012-01-29T10:03:22Z")
and at the other end, how much do you pay to watch tv vs. how much to go to a movie? ---
**Author:** ![BeaMyra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BeaMyra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeaMyra)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/11 "2012-01-29T10:17:27Z")
Google “Hollywood Accounting” and you’ll understand why. Movies have historically been altering their costs and profit, to suit whatever the studio wants. I’d think you’d have to get true costs versus accounting stated costs. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/12 "2012-01-29T10:46:48Z")
It’s not that movies cost more, it’s that TV costs less. With standing sets, fast turnaround, no room for perfectionism, small regular crews, formulaic structure, and lower resolution imagery for visual effects etc, it reduces the cost to a tenth of what it could be. If they had the luxury of time and opportunity, TV episodes would cost a lot closer to movies if the creators got their way. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/13 "2012-01-29T13:49:59Z")
TV shows typically have one or two cameras tops, and just a couple of takes per scene. TV actors and directors would rather be making movies, but typically (a) aren’t there yet, (b) aren’t gonna get there or © aren’t there anymore. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/14 "2012-01-29T13:55:44Z")
TV shows shoot more scenes per day and have a tighter schedule, so costs per episode are reduced. They reuse sets in every episode; some episodes only require existing sets. They are also written to avoid overly expensive scenes. If something is going to put the episode over budget, it’s cut or revised to save money. The backlot or L.A. Locations are used instead of going on location. Shows will do all their location shooting in a week or two (and the shows usually are ate in a single location). Directors and the actors are generally paid less. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/15 "2012-01-29T14:20:17Z")
So the answer is that in large part filmmakers are allowed to go “nuts” with the money? [http://wonkalove.tribe.net/thread/f001070d-d2a8-4433-952f-e5d346f5218c](http://wonkalove.tribe.net/thread/f001070d-d2a8-4433-952f-e5d346f5218c) > [@](#): > > Director Tim Burton has spent six months training 200 squirrels for a scene in his latest movie, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” > > The original 1971 movie didn’t include any animals, but the eccentric filmmaker was so desperate to create the “nut room” from Roald Dahl’s original novel, he spent millions of dollars teaching the bushy-tailed rodents how to crack nuts and load them onto a conveyor belt. > > The painstaking scene took another 10 weeks to shoot at London’s Pinewood Studios. > > A source says, "We used actual rodents. From birth, we sent them to training school for six months. > > “Tim was determined to bring the nut room to life. Using squirrels proved too difficult in the first film but he spent millions of dollars getting it right.” > > He also created an 80-foot chocolate waterfall and a chocolate river for the movie, which stars Burton’s fiancee Helena Bonham Carter and Hollywood hunk Johnny Depp. Where as on TV they would have to use some creative techniques to do the scene. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/16 "2012-01-29T15:47:59Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > It’s not that movies cost more, it’s that TV costs less. > > With standing sets, fast turnaround, no room for perfectionism, small regular crews, formulaic structure, and lower resolution imagery for visual effects etc, it reduces the cost to a tenth of what it could be. > > If they had the luxury of time and opportunity, TV episodes would cost a lot closer to movies if the creators got their way. I think this rings true. Also, this [article](http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-cost.htm) mentions a few other reason why the above is true. ---
**Author:** ![postcards](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8e8cbc/32.png) [@postcards](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postcards)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/17 "2012-01-29T17:14:10Z")
Location shooting takes time and money, which TV shows don’t have as much of as do movies. TV shows will more often [green-screen](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k) location shots. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/18 "2012-01-29T17:34:35Z")
postcards, that was really cool. I was aware of green screen technology, but in my mind, it’s associated with sci-fi, way-too-expensive-to-build sets, and other “must be created from imagination” type shots. Not for most of the types of things shown, things as simple as a trolley car driving by. ---
**Author:** ![Dendarii\_Dame](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbce88/32.png) [@Dendarii\_Dame](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dendarii_Dame)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2012, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/19 "2012-01-29T18:55:04Z")
I was going to say that TV has ads, and movies don’t. Then I thought about it… ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2012, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901/20 "2012-01-30T18:03:16Z")
Television actors are often not paid as well as movie actors. _Battlestar_ only costs $1.5M/episode, but in the last two seasons of _Friends_, the principal actors were paid $1M/episode each. Even that (which is a lot), is much less than A-list movie stars get for being the lead in a film. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-movies-cost-so-much-more-than-tv/610901.md?page=2)