I was just at mojoboxoffice.com and i know prices have gone up a lot, but i'm really suprised at some production bugets.

Burlesque has a production budget of 55 million dollar. I mean, come on, what did they do with that money. Doesn't this movie take place in a club with some dancers? Or did Christina get a paycheck of 15 million? LOL

Tangled has a production budget of 260 million dollars!!! It's a computer animation!

I can understand that Avatar was expensive, but as i understand, they worked years on it.

Anybody can explain?

I have no idea, but there are plenty of good movies that are made for a bag of cat hair and a couple of buttons

A lot of the price is forced up by large teams of employees all with salaries/fees of the different depts. And I'm not sure what Boxofficemojo takes into consideration, but just the cost of making film prints, and the advertising is millions of dollars in itself.

The funny thing is that special effects wizards are forming from kids that grew up using the software on their home computers, and they are turning it out!

Check out the news on the feature "Monsters". It was made for $15,000 dollars/effects included (minus the advertising, sounddesign, and final sweetening at a post production facility)... and many people are really threatened by that initial budget claim and how good the effects look for one guy that does it himself.

Outside of talent salaries:

Production cost are crazy.

Just 2 scout and rent locations, salaries for 100, if not 1,000's of people, equipment, food, insurance, etc................it adds up real fast. Especially if u are not on the set and are filming on "location".

[Edited 12/6/10 12:16pm]

ufoclub said:

A lot of the price is forced up by large teams of employees all with salaries/fees of the different depts. And I'm not sure what Boxofficemojo takes into consideration, but just the cost of making film prints, and the advertising is millions of dollars in itself.

The funny thing is that special effects wizards are forming from kids that grew up using the software on their home computers, and they are turning it out!

Check out the news on the feature "Monsters". It was made for $15,000 dollars/effects included (minus the advertising, sounddesign, and final sweetening at a post production facility)... and many people are really threatened by that initial budget claim and how good the effects look for one guy that does it himself.

well, that's what i mean. That's why i am so surprised that a computer animated movie can costs 260 million dollar...and it's not on location ;.)

but like you say, advertisement is probably also a big thing.

Have you ever watched the credits for a movie? It takes a lot of people (with a lot of expertise) - and equipment - to make one.

fancy catering mostly

if 250 people work on a movie that takes 6 months to make, and every day each of those folks is entitled to one hot dog, which for argumens' sake we price at a reasonable $1 then catering along is $45,625. Imagine if the hot dogs were $2

You could also save a lot of money if you film it closer to IKEA

ZombieKitten said:

fancy catering mostly

if 250 people work on a movie that takes 6 months to make, and every day each of those folks is entitled to one hot dog, which for argumens' sake we price at a reasonable $1 then catering along is $45,625. Imagine if the hot dogs were $2

You could also save a lot of money if you film it closer to IKEA

I have found that there is a point at which, as the budget increases, my likelihood of enjoying the movie decreases

ZombieKitten said:

fancy catering mostly

if 250 people work on a movie that takes 6 months to make, and every day each of those folks is entitled to one hot dog, which for argumens' sake we price at a reasonable $1 then catering along is $45,625. Imagine if the hot dogs were $2

You could also save a lot of money if you film it closer to IKEA

No, you didn't.

TD3 said:

ZombieKitten said:

fancy catering mostly

if 250 people work on a movie that takes 6 months to make, and every day each of those folks is entitled to one hot dog, which for argumens' sake we price at a reasonable $1 then catering along is $45,625. Imagine if the hot dogs were $2

You could also save a lot of money if you film it closer to IKEA

No, you didn't.

I'm not even taking into consideration that a lot of people are on set 18 hours a day, and those people should probably get 2 hot dogs each

ZombieKitten said:

TD3 said:

No, you didn't.

I'm not even taking into consideration that a lot of people are on set 18 hours a day, and those people should probably get 2 hot dogs each

Potato chips have gotten pretty expensive, too. And you know those folks won't be content with generic chips, either.

Genesia said:

ZombieKitten said:

I'm not even taking into consideration that a lot of people are on set 18 hours a day, and those people should probably get 2 hot dogs each

Potato chips have gotten pretty expensive, too. And you know those folks won't be content with generic chips, either.

very true, and what about all the movie stars, none of them would dare eat bread or potatoes or processed meats - what do we serve them?

a dish like this costs about $25 in a regular restaurant. We could probably source the ingredients wholesale, so perhaps it would cost us $12, and say we have 10 actors, who are all on set 25% of the time, requiring 2 meals a day, that's an extra $10,950.

NDRU said:

I have found that there is a point at which, as the budget increases, my likelihood of enjoying the movie decreases

Good point.

ZombieKitten said:

Genesia said:

Potato chips have gotten pretty expensive, too. And you know those folks won't be content with generic chips, either.

very true, and what about all the movie stars, none of them would dare eat bread or potatoes or processed meats - what do we serve them?

a dish like this costs about $25 in a regular restaurant. We could probably source the ingredients wholesale, so perhaps it would cost us $12, and say we have 10 actors, who are all on set 25% of the time, requiring 2 meals a day, that's an extra $10,950.

This has been another edition of, "Do The Math" by ZombieKitten

TD3 said:

ZombieKitten said:

very true, and what about all the movie stars, none of them would dare eat bread or potatoes or processed meats - what do we serve them?

a dish like this costs about $25 in a regular restaurant. We could probably source the ingredients wholesale, so perhaps it would cost us $12, and say we have 10 actors, who are all on set 25% of the time, requiring 2 meals a day, that's an extra $10,950.

This has been another edition of, "Do The Math" by ZombieKitten

!!!

NDRU said:

I have found that there is a point at which, as the budget increases, my likelihood of enjoying the movie decreases

treu, money kills creativity

Genesia said:

Have you ever watched the credits for a movie? It takes a lot of people (with a lot of expertise) - and equipment - to make one.

Exactly what I was gonna say. The list is usually a couple hundred names long or more.

You can still make movies inexpesively. A lot of art house movies have very small budgets, but they never make it to more than a few theaters so they can be elligible for Academy Award voting. They cost so little that the producers make money from DVD/Blu-Ray sales and rentals and televisions rights. In theaters right now is 127 Hours ($18 million), Black Swan ($13 Million), The King's Speech ($15 million) and I Love You, Phillip Morris ($13 Million). But most people will never see those movies in a theater.

The movies that people are still going to theaters to see cost a lot to produce because...

(all of these may have been mentioned, I'm too lazy to read right now )

Talent - big names often cost a lot up front, or points on the back end which measn the producers get less of the profit

Director

Cinematographer

Sets, set decoration, makeup and hair, wardrobe <--- can be a big one

Practical effects (which may or may not include makeup beyond the regular daily stuff)

Crews of people for sets, wardrobe, makeup, hair, lighting, sound, etc.

Location scouting and paying to secure the sites chosen

Moving all of the cast and crew from site to site

Lodging for all of the cast and crew

Insurance for the cast and crew

Catering for the cast and crew

Editor (some directors do this themselves, but not a majority)

Post production: editing, special effects, digital effects (like digital grading) <--- post production costs are high these days, another big chunk

Composer

Orchestra

Title sequences

And I'm sure there's more that I'm missing. Add all that up and it's just freakin' expensive. Do a lot of studios over spend? Hell yes they do! I'm constantly amazed (like you) at what some movies cost. But Burlesque's budget is actually pretty small. The industry would be in much better shape if more movies only cost $55 million.

Computer generated movies cost a lot because it takes a couple years of hundreds (if not thousands) of people working insane hours to create them. The PC power and storage required is also way up there on the ridiculous scale. $265 million seems completely out of control, though. Toy Story 3 was $200 million. Megamind was $130 million. And Despicable Me was only $69 million.

Advertising costs are additional, not included in the production budget.

The crazy thing is that we can actually make movies at home now that look better than what used to be considered a "hip independent" film. The production budget for Paranormal Activity was $15,000.00 (yes, fifteen thousand).

So, long response - apologies, but the REAL reason these major studio movies cost so much is that it's the machine feeding itself. First, it's keeping people employed. Second, it makes it possible to ask (and get) that much the next time they want to put a similar movie into production. But the costs are ridiculous and movies can be made for much less.

Union labor.

jone70 said:

Union labor.

The opposite of non-union labor?

I get your point tho'.

I have a relative who's an actress/playwrite/RNA and in the 90's she was a "BACKGROUND PLAYER" (extra) for TV's, commercials, and movies. She told then she made anything from $250.00 to about $375.00 a day. Her mother/her family lives in View Point / Baldwin Hills in LA the studio's are alway in their neighborhood filming on location and "renting" homes. Sometimes they are there for a week to a month, filming around the clock. The going rate to rent a home is $10,000 a week. They send letters through out the block informing neighbors if the noise is an inconvenience they'll pay to put you up in a hotel. We aren't taking about Motel 6 either. She's worked on sets as a RNA and they make couple of hundred dollars a day. So, when you think of what's all involved, it adds up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Edited 12/7/10 8:16am]

Cerebus said:

the REAL reason these major studio movies cost so much is that it's the machine feeding itself. First, it's keeping people employed. Second, it makes it possible to ask (and get) that much the next time they want to put a similar movie into production. But the costs are ridiculous and movies can be made for much less.

True!

People can make quality movies for so much less, and are turning out stuff from outside avenues, and in some cases people refuse to even believe how cheaply it was made for.

"Monsters" case and point. I know the people. The original shooting/effects budget of $15,000 with only a three person production team and two actors is true. I think they had to change their reports to higher (including the eventual post house fees for sweetening) because of negative backlash!

dang right they're costly! my movie, Invasion of the Birdie Snatchers, is up to tens of dollars already.

Cerebus said:

You can still make movies inexpesively. A lot of art house movies have very small budgets, but they never make it to more than a few theaters so they can be elligible for Academy Award voting. They cost so little that the producers make money from DVD/Blu-Ray sales and rentals and televisions rights. In theaters right now is 127 Hours ($18 million), Black Swan ($13 Million), The King's Speech ($15 million) and I Love You, Phillip Morris ($13 Million). But most people will never see those movies in a theater.

The movies that people are still going to theaters to see cost a lot to produce because...

(all of these may have been mentioned, I'm too lazy to read right now )

Talent - big names often cost a lot up front, or points on the back end which measn the producers get less of the profit

Director

Cinematographer

Sets, set decoration, makeup and hair, wardrobe <--- can be a big one

Practical effects (which may or may not include makeup beyond the regular daily stuff)

Crews of people for sets, wardrobe, makeup, hair, lighting, sound, etc.

Location scouting and paying to secure the sites chosen

Moving all of the cast and crew from site to site

Lodging for all of the cast and crew

Insurance for the cast and crew

Catering for the cast and crew

Editor (some directors do this themselves, but not a majority)

Post production: editing, special effects, digital effects (like digital grading) <--- post production costs are high these days, another big chunk

Composer

Orchestra

Title sequences

And I'm sure there's more that I'm missing. Add all that up and it's just freakin' expensive. Do a lot of studios over spend? Hell yes they do! I'm constantly amazed (like you) at what some movies cost. But Burlesque's budget is actually pretty small. The industry would be in much better shape if more movies only cost $55 million.

Computer generated movies cost a lot because it takes a couple years of hundreds (if not thousands) of people working insane hours to create them. The PC power and storage required is also way up there on the ridiculous scale. $265 million seems completely out of control, though. Toy Story 3 was $200 million. Megamind was $130 million. And Despicable Me was only $69 million.

Advertising costs are additional, not included in the production budget.

The crazy thing is that we can actually make movies at home now that look better than what used to be considered a "hip independent" film. The production budget for Paranormal Activity was $15,000.00 (yes, fifteen thousand).

So, long response - apologies, but the REAL reason these major studio movies cost so much is that it's the machine feeding itself. First, it's keeping people employed. Second, it makes it possible to ask (and get) that much the next time they want to put a similar movie into production. But the costs are ridiculous and movies can be made for much less.

Thanks for your response. I'm not the only one who thinks it's crazy.

All though i think it's a good thing when it keeps people people employed, i'm not sure in what kind of shape the studios are these days.

The machine feeding itself, nice expression. Its what happens with soccer, they pay more and more for soccerplayers until they go bankrupt.