As I learn more and more about film making, it's very hard for me to believe that movie studios truly pay $100, $200, or even $300 million dollars on fantasy/visual effect heavy/action-adventure/summer block buster movies. I don't know if those reported budgets are including advertising/marketing campaign budgets, but if they are --I can't find myself believing their budgets balloon to that degree. Do movie studios lie about their budgets publicly to sensationalize the importance of seeing the movie? To make it a "must see" in the public's eyes? Make it seem more "special"? Are they being truthful? Do I not understand how they could be spending so much? Do you understand how they could be spending so muchBudget MOvie Studio? Not be spending so much? How could they? Couldn't they?
Do movie studios lie about their budgets?
- Thread starter AmateurFilmmaker
- Start date
A typical reported film budget usually does not include marketing and distribution costs (P&A - Prints and Advertising.)
It is very easy for an effects laden film to soar into those budget numbers. A common saying about effects houses is this: Good, Cheap, Fast: You are only allowed two of those, you can never get all three once.
It is very easy for an effects laden film to soar into those budget numbers. A common saying about effects houses is this: Good, Cheap, Fast: You are only allowed two of those, you can never get all three once.
I guess things have changed.
We got a different answer the last time this question was asked.
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=31210
We got a different answer the last time this question was asked.
http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=31210
The P&A is pretty much always on top of the reported production budget.
Here is a relatively recent article breaking it down.
And here is an older article about P&A costs.
I just read the thread you linked to and it seems to more be about trying to reconcile different reported budgets when a low budget film is acquired.
For instance, Paranormal Activity's budget for the production of the film is widely reported as anywhere from 10-15K. However, the studio that acquired it, did post production work, and did P&A on the film. This kind of confuses the issue sometimes.
I know it is mindboggling, but it's true. For instance, MI: Rogue Nation reportedly had a Production Budget of around 150M. However, sometimes you will see what is called a Estimated Total US Budget which does include Domestic P&A. For Rogue Nation this budget is reportedly 200M.
Here is a relatively recent article breaking it down.
And here is an older article about P&A costs.
I just read the thread you linked to and it seems to more be about trying to reconcile different reported budgets when a low budget film is acquired.
For instance, Paranormal Activity's budget for the production of the film is widely reported as anywhere from 10-15K. However, the studio that acquired it, did post production work, and did P&A on the film. This kind of confuses the issue sometimes.
I know it is mindboggling, but it's true. For instance, MI: Rogue Nation reportedly had a Production Budget of around 150M. However, sometimes you will see what is called a Estimated Total US Budget which does include Domestic P&A. For Rogue Nation this budget is reportedly 200M.
This indicates you still have quite a bit to learn about filmmaking. Why do you find it hard to believe?
The funding of blockbusters is extremely complex and I'm sure there is a often a "margin of error" in the quoted budgets. There is no absolute rule of what is meant by "the budget", although usually the quoted budget would be the cost of making the film, IE. The cost of pre-production, production and post-production but usually not the marketing and distribution costs. Low budget indie films can have even more misleading quoted budgets though. Some of the most famous; El Mariachi, Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity for example, all quoted budgets which were only for production. All three had hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on them in post-production and then considerable sums more to market and distribute.
G
Of course they lie. But it still costs a lot of money to produce a movie.
Look at the end credits; Let's say there are 150 people listed. And that
each of those 150 people earn $300/day (some will be higher, some
lower) which is around $25/hr. So that's $45,000 per day for labor. A
typical fantasy/visual effect heavy/action-adventure/summer blockbuster
will have a post production period of 12 to 16 months. One week is
$225,00 is salaries. 12 months? That's almost $12,000,000 in post
production salaries.
$12mil is about what the director gets. A typical fantasy/visual effect
heavy/action-adventure/summer blockbuster will have a producing team
of 8 to 12 people and a total cost of $15 to $20mil so we're talking $50mil
and we haven't even touched on stars and the production team. So yes,
it's very easy to spend $100 to $300mil on a typical fantasy/visual effect
heavy/action-adventure/summer blockbuster.
When you look at the links rayw posted you will see that the production
budget is separate from the marketing. The Hollywood Reporter link says
the same thing. His “the-numbers” links also show that production budget
and marketing budget are separate.
Here is quote from one of the makers of the The Blair Witch:
Do they lie? Is the Pope Catholic?