Movie budgets:

[Guest DVD Spree]

Just something I've been wondering.

 

Say they make Super Killy Killy 5 and they get a budget of $100 million. Brad Pitt and Keira Knightley star in the flick, so do their hefty salaries come out of that budget? I was always under the impression that a flick's budget is exclusively for the cost of production, while actors' salaries and promotion etc. are funded separately by the studio.

 

Little help?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I don't think that even promotion counts towards the budget.

[Mole 0]

The budget includes everything that costs to make a movie. A actor's salary is a cost to make a movie, so it counts in the budget.

 

The promotion isn't in the budget -- all of that happens after the movie is made.

[Nighthawk 0]

What if the actor is one of those assholes who want you to fly to China to get them some tea. Since that's part of making the movie, that has to be accounted for in the budget. So the budget would not only have to include the actor's salary, but take into account how much of a Hollywood egotist they are.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

What if the actor is one of those assholes who want you to fly to China to get them some tea. Since that's part of making the movie, that has to be accounted for in the budget. So the budget would not only have to include the actor's salary, but take into account how much of a Hollywood egotist they are.

Yep. James Cameron has said that the studio paid more for Arnold's trailer in T2, then they did for the entire first film.

[WrestlingDeacon 0]

A lot of actors have their salaries deferred or take a piece of the action to offset some stuff. So even a guy like Jim Carrey who makes $20 million a flick might only pull in $10 million flat and get the rest in other options.

[Downhome 0]

What if the actor is one of those assholes who want you to fly to China to get them some tea. Since that's part of making the movie, that has to be accounted for in the budget. So the budget would not only have to include the actor's salary, but take into account how much of a Hollywood egotist they are.

Yep. James Cameron has said that the studio paid more for Arnold's trailer in T2, then they did for the entire first film.

WTF.

 

I don't see why they ever started to do shit like that, it's uncalled for on both sides. Both for the actors that demand or even ASK for it, and for those that give in.

[Guest El Satanico]

Because the studio will do it and the actors know it. So of course the actors will take advantage of the studio being willing to do it.

 

If you found out about a perk at your job wouldn't you want to take advantage of it?

[Guest DVD Spree]

So when, say, a Ben Affleck movie has a budget of $100 million, the dude's salary comes out of that? So then all these movies that are touted as $100 or $200 million budgets are really only $70 or $150 when you factor in actor's salaries?

[Guest El Satanico]

Well it wouldn't be that much of a difference, unless the cast consists of all A list actors who are making 20 mill.

 

Aren't 10-20 mill actors rare?

[Downhome 0]

Because the studio will do it and the actors know it. So of course the actors will take advantage of the studio being willing to do it.

 

If you found out about a perk at your job wouldn't you want to take advantage of it?

Of course, you don't get what I mean. I know good and well that things can not change now, it's just the way things are now.

 

I don't see why it ever started to begin with.

 

I KNOW why, but I don't see why it...blah, you get the idea, I hope.

[Karnage 0]

Do cameras eat up a lot of the budget too? Clerks was made for $27,000 which still sounds like a lot to me for a black and white movie filmed mostly inside a convenience store where the actors and actresses probably worked for little to nothing.

[Guest Doyo]

So then all these movies that are touted as $100 or $200 million budgets are really only $70 or $150 when you factor in actor's salaries?

That would still be a HUGE amount of money. The Crow was made for around $6 million. Bruce Lee's

first movies were made for under $200,000. Enter the Dragon was made for $850,000 and

that was the highest budget ever for a kung fu movie at the time. I'm just saying that it is

amazing the amounts of money that the studios like to throw around. Imagine what NWA TNA could do with $100 million.

[Mole 0]

Sign Hogan.

 

Oh wait.

[Guest El Satanico]

Because the studio will do it and the actors know it. So of course the actors will take advantage of the studio being willing to do it.

 

If you found out about a perk at your job wouldn't you want to take advantage of it?

Of course, you don't get what I mean. I know good and well that things can not change now, it's just the way things are now.

 

I don't see why it ever started to begin with.

 

I KNOW why, but I don't see why it...blah, you get the idea, I hope.

eh...the only thing I know is blame the studios.

 

It's the same as big money contracts in sports...I blame team owners

[Guest DVD Spree]

That would still be a HUGE amount of money. The Crow was made for around $6 million. Bruce Lee's

first movies were made for under $200,000. Enter the Dragon was made for $850,000 and

that was the highest budget ever for a kung fu movie at the time. I'm just saying that it is

amazing the amounts of money that the studios like to throw around. Imagine what NWA TNA could do with $100 million.

Oh, I didn't mean it like that - by "only" I meant that you hear people slating movies because they had such and such a budget. "Oh, that movie had a $200 million budget and it was junk." But I mean, with just one A-list star, that's $10-$15 million eaten up already. If you've got five other stars who "only" pull in $5 million each, that's another $25 million. Factor in the rest of the cast, extras, crew, and I'm assuming that if the cast's salaries come out of the budget, so does the director's - since A list directors generally pull in a similar $10-$15 million, all of a sudden your $200 million budget is looking more like $140 million.

 

I'm not saying it's not a lot of money - and I'm sure we don't need a debate to figure out whether anyone is REALLY worth $10 million for six months' work on a film, or whether anyone really needs more than that much money. And as an aside, I don't think it's useful to compare budgets of kung-fu movies, especially Hong Kong movies - what did The Big Boss cost, $10,000 US if that? Even Purple Storm, which was made in 2000, only cost $200,000 US, so it's a pretty pointless basis for comparison.

 

I just wanted to get the figures in perspective really with smaller budget films in mind - Clerks was a phenominal achievement for $26,000, but seeing as (as Karnage said) it was a bunch of friends making a black and white movie in a convenience store, it doesn't really count. Something like Dogma being made for $10 million salaries included is truly a feat of excellent budgeting.

[Kaertos 0]

As far as cameras go, from what I understand, they are rented for a relatively small sum of money (considering how important they are). There has to be a site somewhere that breaks down the budget of a big Hollywood film...

[Guest DVD Spree]

As far as cameras go, from what I understand, they are rented for a relatively small sum of money (considering how important they are). There has to be a site somewhere that breaks down the budget of a big Hollywood film...

You know, in theory IMDB.com should be SOOOOOOO useful.