I think we need an Inflation scale here.![]()
$15 million wasn't low budget in the mid-1980s. $14-16 million was the standard budget range for a studio film at the time. $20-30 million was big budget, and higher than $30 million was crazy money. Top Gun was released in 1986, the same year as The Fly, and had about the same production budget.
I was less happy with The Man From Earth, which was so theatrical I found it hard to justify a film version, but the story it told was still fascinating. And it was certainly made for a low budget.
I assume that the first Mad Max was made for about ten cents.
I wasn't saying that Top Gun was cheaply made. My point was exactly the opposite - that a $15 million budget was sizable in 1986 and within the standard budget range of big studio films. Without military cooperation it might have cost as much as, say, $20-25 million - a budget that would have made it one the most expensive films of the year.Top Gun could be made so 'cheaply' (only Hollywood could call 15 million dollars, in any year, 'low budget') because of extensive cooperation from the U.S. Military. Their lack of cooperation is also why plans to make Top Gun 2 were scrapped. Make no mistake. If the studio had to pay for all the costs of military equipment, airplanes, and other resources that were provided to the production, it would not have cost $15 million.
Moon.
Buy. Buy more. Buy more now.
Curses, I knew someone was gonna bring up inflation sooner or later!Star Wars, which wasn't by any means low budget by the standards of 1977 (although it got great production values from its budget - more so than some big budget films of the time), adjusts to a budget of just $38.65 million in 2008 dollars (that's using the most-often cited budget figure of $11 million as a starting point).
And it has one of the best bits of dialogue in any Lucas film:
Buy. Buy more. Buy more now.
District 9 is good and doesn't look low budget, at all, and would have more of an excuse to be.
I wasn't saying that Top Gun was cheaply made. My point was exactly the opposite - that a $15 million budget was sizable in 1986 and within the standard budget range of big studio films. Without military cooperation it might have cost as much as, say, $20-25 million - a budget that would have made it one the most expensive films of the year.Top Gun could be made so 'cheaply' (only Hollywood could call 15 million dollars, in any year, 'low budget') because of extensive cooperation from the U.S. Military. Their lack of cooperation is also why plans to make Top Gun 2 were scrapped. Make no mistake. If the studio had to pay for all the costs of military equipment, airplanes, and other resources that were provided to the production, it would not have cost $15 million.
With the budget inflation Hollywood films have experienced over the last 20 years, even films that get a lot of production values from military cooperation can end up being very expensive these days, costing far more than the $30 million that the budget of Top Gun adjusts to today.
To give another example from 1986: Aliens had a budget of $18.5 million, which adjusts to $35.86 million in 2008 dollars. The yardstick of what constitutes an expensive studio film used to be a hell of a lot lower than it is today.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.