What went wrong with Hollywood budgets?

Is there any reason why a Ghostbusters reboot needs to have a budget north of 200 million for production and marketing? Why does everything need to cost at least $150 million? If smaller Hollywood studios like Lionsgate has just a few high budget flops in a year then it could potentially bankrupt them. This is getting ludicrous.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hwamxQMefNA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Yes > rush > king crimson

Marketing probably costs more than the movie itself nowadays.

Hollywood keeps thinking that they can pump out shitty remakes, sequels and flicks and spend hundreds of millions because they'll get a billion bucks at the box office.

Im enjoying the box office flops on these greedy kikes.

Newsflash: it doesnt actually cost hollywood as much as you think to make movies.

Numbers are bloated to hell so that large sums go straight to the big shots to keep them rich.

Id even argue that more money is used on advertising most of the time then the actual filmmaking, which is why we are usually left with garbage cgi and shit writing

Blame Amy Pascal, about 20 million went to paul fag, who's now in director's jail, 15 to mccarthy 10 to wiig and chump change to the two nobodies, so that's about 55 million, the other 100 million went to the movie

Hollywood black accounting. Most of this money is embezzled through shit like marketing and companies related to production run by the producers' friends/relatives

Didn't you even wonder how could a $100 look like fucking dogshit, which most of them often do?

This. Hollywood jews think that you can sell any shit, as long as you sell right, so marketing actually takes priority over the product now. Saddest part is that audiences keep proving them right

>Saddest part is that audiences keep proving them right

Isn't this entire summer proof that audiences won't just eat up something that is shit and put infront of them? We have had over twelve sequels/remakes flop and be huge commercial failures, and these are films with big names like Star Trek.

...

Star Trek was actually good though. Shame it got caught up in this train wreck of a year.

hollywood accounting, aka money laundering

"heehee yes thats right mr IRS, we needed one hundred million dollars for the uh.... the CGI... it all got spent on our movie........hehe dumb goyim"

That's a great counter argument man, you really showed him. Keep it up.

...

That's just like your opinion man

...

Magma > Weidorje > Yes

SHIT TASTE
H
I
T

T
A
S
T
E

Got that backwards

these guys know. i've been working production for several years now and have been astonished at how much is pocketed and how much ends up as actual production expenses. no one really cares because everyone banks except up lowly PAs. however, there are plenty of perks for us not to blow any whistles.

Gentle Giant > King Crimson > Yes >>>>>>>> The overrated steamed shit that is Rush

>listening to prog

I remember when I used to wear a fedora and smoke vapes.

> This is getting ludicrous.

Nothing in Hollywood actually cost what they’re claiming, it’s all cover for money laundering on a massive scale.

the sad fact is Star Trek was a more then decent movie, and the better then any of the Reboot or TNG movies. Hope it makes enough money in china that they keep going (if with a lesser budget)

But some of the budgets are fake. just that some are less blatant then others. Just look at what happened at Franchise Pictures

kill yourself

>Rush
Like one of the most up and downwards swinging band in existence. At best, they're brilliant. At worst, they're bargain bin tier at a gas station in the late 00s.
I find that even dedicated Rush fans tend to only limit themselves to a few of their albums.

ELP > Yes > King Crimson > Rush

Ghostbusters cost around $150 million to make and market. The rest was embezzled, same for every Hollyjew blockbuster.

Agreed, these companies must be totally dysfunctional. It should not be considered normal for films to cost $150m+. Where the fuck is that money going? It's not like CGI is getting more expensive.

People shit on marketing but at least it's an understandable expense - TV ads cost a shitload of money. Fine - I don't think it's hugely efficient, but at least that makes sense.

Comus=King Crimson>Gentle Giant>Yes>ELP

tl;dr version: Distributers are just huge bleeding pussies.

$150m before marketing, which will have been $30m+ (I don't think it got the $50m+ full court press)

>Comus
Mah nigga.

Don't want to get into a ranking pissing match, but Caravan and Harmonium deserve mention.
youtube.com/watch?v=hwamxQMefNA

cgi cost a lot in usa and the western world i dont know why hollywood studios dont outsource cgi to asian studios when the cost is is 70% less

A lot of it goes to Hollywood accounting (aka legal money laundering) and paying off the huge fees that unions/guilds charge.

Also, it's not unusual for the big stars to get massive paychecks. The really big names can pull $50 million easily these days. Hell even back at their peaks, Stallone and Arnold were pulling $30 million a picture.

CGI isn't actually that insanely expensive anymore. A lot of it is being farmed out to Asia and other parts of the developing world. Remember the Iron Man 3 CGI artists that bitched when Marvel studios suddenly outsourced most of the CG halfway through?

>Remember the Iron Man 3 CGI artists that bitched when Marvel studios suddenly outsourced most of the CG halfway through?

Yep, I remember they complained and lobbied hard to the SAG to get attention to their caused. Marvel eventually relented and gave them more work, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. Disney basically went full sweatshop after that and sent all future CGI work to China/Singapore/Korea.

Gentle Giant > King Crimson > ELP

>listening to nigger music
I remember when you acted like a cuck.

>
Gnidrolog>>>>>>>>>>all other prog

I do gotta agree, lady lake is a goat album