what's with huge production budgets?

[Trubinator]

I was just browsing the wiki article on Terminator Salvation and happened to notice its rumored $200 million budget. It occured to me that that's one helluva budget for a reboot movie based on a franchise that was on its downturn as of five years ago. But this seems to be the norm with The Dark Knight and its $180 million budget, as well as numerous other films.

Does anyone else think this trend is a little silly? It seems like an incredible waste of money to me and a huge gamble for the studios. A film on a $200 million budget has to make 200 mil to break even...dumb. I remember the days of making movies such as ALIEN on $10 million or so. I wish filmmakers would ease up on the CGI and big name actors and just make good films.

Your thoughts? Agree? Disagree? Don't care?

[Tulin]

Yes it's ridiculous.

For $200m I wanna see the entire future war. I am sure, however, we will get lots of people hiding in dark bunkers and sounds of battle.

[Bob The Skutter]

I was saying to a friend the other day, what's with all these massive budgets? They go on about piracy taking profits away, then put out loads of movies that cost $150m or more in the space of 4 months, and expect that they'll all turn a profit? Surely that's not right.

[bigdaddy]

Well the thing that gets be is Wall-e cost 180 million. I never knew CGI was that much, I thought they used CGI in movies now to save money on filming on location. It is insane. Even just 5-10 years ago a BIG movie would only cost 100 million.

[Bob The Skutter]

bigdaddy wrote:

---

Well the thing that gets be is Wall-e cost 180 million. I never knew CGI was that much, I thought they used CGI in movies now to save money on filming on location. It is insane. Even just 5-10 years ago a BIG movie would only cost 100 million.

Well, CG isn't cheap, it's just you can do more for what practical effects would cost. They even mention on the Stargate Continuum commentary that it's the only thing that hasn't got cheaper in the 12 years they've been doing Stargate. "When we first started it cost $50,000 just to have someone step through the gate, and now it costs $50,000."

[dragunzng]

I agree with regards to Wall-E, CG isn't cheap, but TMNT cost roughly 30 million dollars. I know TMNT was done by Imagi (a Korean company) and this helped cut costs, but it's still ridiculous that Wall-E (which admittedly is technically superior) cost 6 times more to create.

As far as that Stargate Continuum remark goes about the cost of stepping it through the gate... someone's definitely doing something very wrong. The Stargate ripple effect is one of the easiest effects create in all CG-dom. I'm not exaggerating that a layman with no prior knowledge of 3D studio Max could most likely create something similar with only two hours of tutoring. $50,000 for that!? Yikes!

[John Picard]

Computer programmers and animation software don't come cheap. Audiences was realistic special effects, so quit griping unless you want the cheese factor set to 10.

[Bob The Skutter]

dragunzng wrote:

---

I agree with regards to Wall-E, CG isn't cheap, but TMNT cost roughly 30 million dollars. I know TMNT was done by Imagi (a Korean company) and this helped cut costs, but it's still ridiculous that Wall-E (which admittedly is technically superior) cost 6 times more to create.

As far as that Stargate Continuum remark goes about the cost of stepping it through the gate... someone's definitely doing something very wrong. The Stargate ripple effect is one of the easiest effects create in all CG-dom. I'm not exaggerating that a layman with no prior knowledge of 3D studio Max could most likely create something similar with only two hours of tutoring. $50,000 for that!? Yikes!

To my eyes, Wall-E looked a lot more detailed, though. Probably took a lot more man hours to do, and as you say, TMNT was done in Korea.

Well to be fair, they didn't say 50k to show the stargate, they said to step through it, which I'd guess would be a little more complex than just showing it?

[dragunzng]

Bob The Skutter wrote:

---

To my eyes, Wall-E looked a lot more detailed, though. Probably took a lot more man hours to do, and as you say, TMNT was done in Korea.

Well to be fair, they didn't say 50k to show the stargate, they said to step through it, which I'd guess would be a little more complex than just showing it?

Yeah, Wall-E was definitely a lot more detailed, it's still just staggering though how much more expensive than something in the same genre using similar technology is.

[Mr Light]

Some budgets do blow my mind. Pirates costing 150 mil I understand as there's huge sets, ships on the ocean filming and whatnot. But Spider-Man 3? It had about 15 minutes of action in the whole thing. The rest of it was just actors whining in an apartment.

They made Transformers on 151 mil and it looks like it had triple the budget of any of these movies. Tons of gorgeous on location filming across the world, super detailed CGI robots, real-life military action... How come Michael Bay is so much more cost-efficient? I did read one article that says he's a monster on the set rushing people through takes as quickly as possible.

[Brikar99]

CG isn't the only thing that's expensive when making a movie. You've got to pay EVERYONE, the whole thing is catered, million dollar cameras with half-million dollar lenses, light bulbs that, I shit you not, cost $50 apiece if you cheap out on a college student budget, costumes, props...

None of these things are cheap. When you're making a big action movie with tons of effects, CG or practical, lots of stunts... this shit adds up. Not to mention if you're shutting down a city street somewhere you've got to pay. Travel costs... all these things are determined in the budget.

[Hermiod]

I like a big blockbuster as much as the next guy, but cheaper movies that rely on characters and plot are more interesting. I should point out that Cloverfield cost $25m.

[paudemge]

I've suspect that some movies get ripped off and others don't.

[TemporalFlux]

One thing that's hurting is that Vancouver is no longer a cheap place to go since the U.S. dollar dropped down even with the Canadian dollar. The only cheap outlet left to Hollywood productions is Australia, and even it ain't that cheap anymore.

[Bob The Skutter]

TemporalFlux wrote:

---

One thing that's hurting is that Vancouver is no longer a cheap place to go since the U.S. dollar dropped down even with the Canadian dollar. The only cheap outlet left to Hollywood productions is Australia, and even it ain't that cheap anymore.

There's always Eastern Europe.