The Two Towers Budget (adjusted for inflation) : $127M

>The Two Towers Budget (adjusted for inflation) : $127M
>Ghostbusters (2016) Budget : $144M

Can someone explain how this is possible? I'm not trying to bait anyone or to make a statement, I'm genuinely asking because I don't know much about movie production

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_wA5evoo3LY
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

What exactly is your question?

FotR cost $93million, almost exactly have of Ghostbusters

embezzlement

Are people's salaries part of the production budget, if they are then someone was lining their pockets on this one

Catering budget.

I still say that the grill powah ghostbusters had to be paid the same as Thor because of the wage gap meme and it ate up the budget.

You have the salary of 100s of crew members + actors + visuals + props + shooting equipment. That shit adds up

One is kino, another one is a fantasy flick.

How can a 4 hour movie with top tier actors, tons of different locations and gigantic battle scenes with levels of detail that have never been surpassed be less expensive than a 2 hour movie with a bunch of female comedians running around doing CGI stuff?

thats a bit unfair since all the lord of the rings films where filmed together so its bound to be cheaper

comedy movies got expensive as fuck like after those judd apatows all became hits. i think the dumb ass producers get most of it.

Something something money landering

Well consider that one was made in the early 2000's prior to the hyperinflation and market recessions of the later part of the decade

Hour of GB production still costs twice as much as horror of LotR production.

They had to supply the cast with tampons and maxi pads

>gb has a larger crew than a LotR production

hmm

Op adjusted and it checks out

Huge salaries for talent with gb

McCarthy got 10mil for example

not exactly surprising. Would take at least 3 women to do the task of one man.

>sexism is funny
lmao

this doesn't work since ghostbusters is also fantasy

>New Zealand is much cheaper than LA
>Tax benefits
>Hollywood accounting

Callory wise? sure.

most of the money goes towards pay checks for actors and advertising now adays

>talent
>McCarthy

kek

It's mostly this. The lord of the rings films were well planned out, efficiently made, shot in NZ, had lots of tax breaks, didn't use as much expensive cgi and because it was all one giant production a lot of the upfront cost of getting production setup was distributed across three films worth of budget. If they had stopped production entirely after each film they all would have cost at least another $20-30m more.

>expensive cgi
Just fucking end it all

THEY FUCKING STOLE IT

Holy makaroni, you cracked it wide open.

>CGI is that expensive
Something tells me computer guys who make ot don't make millions of dollars

They had to compansate for gender pay gap.

This.
I'm from NZ and i can tell you that it costs fuck all to hire a helicopter and fly around the countryside taking cool pan shots.

Have all the LOTR sets been taking down? Except Hobbiton I mean. Pretty sure that is still there.

Get this.

>overblown budget
>women in charge

OK, I get it now.

t. Nothing more than a hole for the superior sex's genitals

A 3-d animator makes roughly $5000 a week (If they work at a hollywood level production studio). A visual effects animator makes about $3,500 a week,

That's $240,000 a year for the really talented, hard working guys. Your average 3-D animator that will do TV-shows or smaller budget features is still a solid $2100 a week ($100,000 a year.)

My source is from my friends as well as the 12th edition (bit outdated, probably more now) graphic artists guild handbook of Pricing & Ethical Guidelines. It's actually a VERY accurate book it terms of how to price your art. My GF just got a job working on a 2-d animated MLP feature as a key animator and her pay was exactly what the book says.

I'm a concept artist myself that works for these kind of studios. My in studio pay is a little less than my freelance rates. Like, working in studio I will get paid around $35-$40 an hour and freelance is between $50-$75/h.

LOTR was a CHEAP production. WETA studios seriously underpays their employees since... they have 0 competition. Like, their artists are fucking amazing but WETA pays them FUCKING SHIT. Like $30k a year. Even working as an entry level concept artist for a shit game studio like Gameloft pays $60k a year.

underrated

WOMEN BTFO

The farmer who owns the mountain where edoras was filmed has some set pieces still setup for the tours

But he doesn't give too much of a shit. The tour guide reckons the farmer had never heard of LOTR and hadn't,t seen a cinema in years.

The farmer only allows the tour guides on his property because of the huge $$

>fuck all
at least you're not lying about being from NZ

You spelled it wrong and it was still funny. Well done, dumbass

Massive actor salaries
Inflation in production costs
Jewish accounting (Money laundering)

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure they're included. There are a lot of people who do it for passion (Ethan Hunt/I'm too drunk to remember the guy from Rosanne), but even with like RDJ and the Avenger's, it's included. Some movies are like 90% budget of paying dumb fucking actors just to be there.

Feel free to add to this list, but the only one I know for sure that they don't include is the marketing budget.

Sony also is dumb as fuck and planned to make a ton of money from toys and bullshit, and then start a franchise from this movie. What the fuck do you expect from a fucking alcoholic and a dumb fucking twat cuck... Not to say that I think I could do better, but they're paid fucking millions and are execs... there should be some fucking quality assurance going on there soon, or Sony is gonna become a wikihistory page fucking fast.

It'd be so funny if this was true, but JLaw, McCarthy and the Gorilla cannot possibly eat that much.

They expected to make at least a trilogy of Ghostbusters, too... why didn't they do the same?

I'd agree with most movies, but GB 2016? They were all nobodies but Wiig (who has been in ACTUAL movies). They should've made a budget for the main 4 of 20 mil, given 10 to Wiig and let the rest fight over the other 10.

McCarthy thinks she actually has something, but she doesn't. No one will know who she is in 5 years, no one will know who Leslie is in 1, and Wiig will live on in spite of this fuckup cause people actually know who she is outside of cheap comedy.

>the OP says he adjusted for inflation
>people keep citing inflation as the cause of this discrepancy

Really made me think

Lord Of The Rings true budget is a bit murky, because it was budget as one long production, and more money was put in over time. That was part of the argument made by the head of New Line as to why he ripped off Jackson.

But I don't really see the point of your question - The Two Towers looks like shit.

Even for it's time, all it had going for it was Gollum.

150 million isn't much. McCarthy alone gets paid 20 million.

They also apparently received a pretty healthy tax rebate for shooting in Boston instead of New York.

Who in their right mind would pay that ugly fat bitch 20 million to star in a film? Jesus fuck

> 150 million isn't much. McCarthy alone gets paid 20 million.

a-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

So basically the girl power film failed because the women involved were unreasonably greedy and the cuck in charge caved in to their unreasonable demands?

You could have gotten any four women and it wouldn't have mattered. They could have got four unknowns and made just as much money. They literally fucked themselves by buying in to the idea that there are people who go to see a movie just because Melissa McCartney was in it. lmfao

In all honestly, it did.

It had more special effects technicians working on it than The Two Towers.

This is why Sony is retarded. This is why Michael Bay, crappy filmmaker that he is, is still beloved by studios. Because he comes in on time and on budget.

Hell, he even paid out of his own pocket when he went over on Bad Boys so he could include a large explosion at the end.

Feig meanwhile shot a giant dance number with hundreds of extras and tons of expensive special effects work - and then cut it out of the film because audiences thought it was stupid. That's millions pissed away right there.

There's an interesting podcast you might like called The Movie Crypt. It's two film directors who interview other directors and actors/crew.

They had an interview with James Gunn, and they were saying how they heard Marvel are super tight and strict with the budgets. And he was like;

>Fair enough. I feel guilty for wasting other peoples money anyway

And then they talked about other unmentioned directors, who would routinely go into overtime because they have to "Find Themselves" and "Aren't Feeling It", even though overtime means paying hundreds of cast and crew (on already very high wages) huge amounts of overtime, and then also putting the shooting schedule behind, which means hiring more crew in post production to make sure the film is ready in time etc.

Even a shitty director like Brett Ratner is continually hired for the same reason as I mentioned above - If the shot sucks, it sucks, but it's done and dusted by wrap time.

Meanwhile David Fincher needs 60 million dollars to shoot Gone Girl because he needs 400 takes of a door slamming.

Here's what's funny.

Deadpool looks like shit.

The effects are really crap. Much worse than Ghostbusters.

Turns out audiences give way more fucks about actual JOKES and story in comedies than the quality of the CGI.

Who would have guessed.

wtf i love michael bay now

they film most of those dumb marvel movies for 70 million. ghostbusters didn't even have a shit talking raccoon.

No, not really.

If you look at her track record, especially coupled with Feig, it's worth it.

However;

It's worth it if you're make a 30 million dollar film where basically half the budget is her salary, and it's an R rated comedy that's going to make like 200 million dollars.

You have to remember too - No actors wanted to touch this film with a ten foot pole. So McCarthy is not going to do this for cheap. She's going to want as much as they can possibly pay.

The idea was stupid to begin with.

>Hey, those raunchy R rated female comedies Feig and McCarthy make are successful. Let's slap that on the Ghostbusters property!

Would have made at least some sense if it was Rogen and co.

But even then, it would be like buying the rights to He Man and saying;

>Man, people sure do love those low budget Eric Hart comedies don't they? Let's give him He Man!

well that's just it. the people who made this film are not in their right minds. They're all fucking insane.

>70 million
Huh? Ant-Man had the lowest budget in the MCU and it was still 130 million. Most of them are 150+ million and the Avengers movies are always over 200.

Yeah, Marvel films are cheap.

But they aren't THAT cheap.

Ant Man was 130, one of their smaller flicks, and it still did more than 500 mil and was considered an "adequate" success.

Poor old Ghostbusters. What a fuck up.

yes really. Melissa McCartney is known for being the lady that shit herself in bridesmaids. That's it. You could have gotten 4 young hotties and made way more money on a smaller budget. But feig just had to get his fat waifu for it because he doesn't understand why his past movies succeeded.

You want a headscratcher.

Video related.

Adjusted for inflation this cost 130 million.

youtube.com/watch?v=_wA5evoo3LY

The glass ceiling made the Ghostbusters more expensive.

Marvel can afford to shell out a lot of money for their flicks because they know they'll make their money back and then some. The MCU is already an established brand. Just what the fuck was Sony thinking with the budget for Ghostbusters?

They didn't have any guarantee that it will be succesful.

I fucking hate Fincher. Most overrated piece of shit director

Absolute kinography.

>Box office: $10.4 million
Shame.

She's also the lady who consistently makes money for being fat and falling over.

Feig is only there because McCarthy is there.

She's the powerful one in the relationship.

Shut your whore mouth.

...

Ghostbusters came out and everyone is talking like I should know who Feig is.

Seriously, who the fuck is he. Why do people use his name like it's something people should know. like... am I suppose to know what movies he has been involved in? have I seen anything he has done?

I saw him on the RLM review and I seriously thought it was the Project Runway guy.

Am I just super out of touch or... ?

They were thinking they had a massively recognizable franchise IP that could easily be re-released over and over and consistently make 500 million + with very little effort.

You spend a 150 million on a Ghostbusters film starring Chris Pratt, Jonah Hill and Two Other Guys and directed by Lord And Miller and you have 500 million in the bank no problem.

Marvel DOESN'T shell out a lot of money for their flicks. They're very financially responsible (much to the complaints of people who work with them - bitching about stuff like shoddy effects right down to bad catering).

150 mil for a GHOSTBUSTERS film is completely rational and standard. Especially when people are spending nearly 200 on a fucking Tarzan movie.

Now...Taking an exploitable brand like this and producing the trainwreck they did...That's a whole different thing.

ill crack ur scull wide open faggot

No. He's literally a nobody.

Basically he was associated with Judd Apatow. He was one of the creators on Freaks And Geeks.

He did nothing for ten years.

Then Apatow threw him a bone and gave him Bridesmaids, and he directed it like all of those films are directed. It was a huge hit, owing absolutely nothing to him.

Likewise with his two other Fat Woman Falls Over vehicle, The Heat and Spy.

He's basically just McCarthy's bitch.

Embezzlement

that looks fucking terrible

FLIM NEW ZEALAND

>DP effects worse than GB.

HAHAHA. Have you even seen GB?

wat

>most of the money goes towards pay checks for actors and advertising now adays

production budgets exclude marketing figures

are you having an affair? nooooo.
*record scratch*
yes!

I haven't actually. Just going by the trailers.

Id' be kind of amazed if they were worse though - DP's were literally bad TV tier, bordering on SyFy.

130 million dollars.

Think about what could be produced for 130 million dollars and then look at that and wonder how it could happen.

>salary of entire crew
>cgi, and getting it done quickly (aka more people)
>locations
>didn't Feig get 10 mil and Melissa get 12?

I haven't seen the movie, but most people seem to be asking where the budget went. 144 mil isn't THAT huge of a number these days- especially when all the effects in your movie are CGI.

Sony should be smart for once and make a ghostbusters film for 60 or 70mil. I swear they're all idiots.

meanwhile my dad breaks his back 10 hours a day in the mine and makes less than 10 euro/hour

consumerism is a fucking cancer

Weren't most of the cast pretty B-rate? I know Vigo is a great actor, but Bloom and Elija weren't really terribly highly rated actors before this series.

There were no A list stars anywhere near the film.

Fellowship was like Bloom's second movie.

Exactly my point. The casting can't have been terribly expensive. I even read somewhere that Ian took the project for virtually nothing because he was an actual fan of the books and just really wanted to play Gandalf in the movies.

Yeah, I read that it was what landed him the job in Pirates.

I haven't seen the LOTR trilogy since I was a young kid. As an adult, would I appreciate it more if I watched it now? Did it age well?

>and just really wanted to play Gandalf in the movies.
Well he and Christopher Lee seemed to be enjoying themselves.

It really did. I watch them yearly and they're literally the peak of highfantasykino.

Get the extended editions and nerd the fuck out over a weekend or something.

They are great movies. Obviously some of the special effects is dated, but the majority of the movie is costumes and real props so it's not a big deal.

The effects look horrendous.

The story is just as shit as ever, so if you liked it back then, you'd probably like it now.

It sucks too because Feig will never be held accountable and the blame will be laid on evil men and their secret gamergate club. When you direct such a blunder with such a high budget and it doesn't come close to profiting, you and executives need to be held accountable.

Lee was honestly one of the biggest names in the film and he was a supporting role.

This entire thread just reminds me of how disappointing The Hobbit was in comparison to LOTR.

I re-watch the entire LOTR trilogy at least once every two years, but I can't bring myself to even buy The Hobbit, much less sit down and see them.

How long are all of the films extended in total?

I love practical effects so it's all good.

I remember enjoying it.

The first 2 Hobbit movies are okay, not they aren't LOTR good, but still alright for a watch. The 3rd one is the only one I would say is actually shit, because 90% of it is original material that was not in the book.

They're like 9+ hours, give or take. Like I said I really recommend you take them over a weekend or something as it'll be pretty exhausting sitting through them all in one day.

think he was going for "half", not sure though.

I shall give it a go, user.

Yeah but that's just it. They're "okay", while I found LOTR to be "great". And in fantasy movies the step from "okay" to "geat" is a fucking big leap.

Enjoy, friendo.

...

wow who cares