How can a COMEDY cost $90 to make?!?!? - Town & Country (2001) Discussion

[–] ajmahaffey 18 years ago

Hesitated to post on this movie as it is OLD and I just rented it on DVD! Anyway, the only thing that impressed me about this movie were the dogs. I have looked on the internet trying to see what breed they were: the BIG black dogs belonging to the Porter & his wife. Does anyone know? Thanks.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] beckstrom7 18 years ago

the budget skyrocketted mainly due to reshoots trying to make the film better. everything has to be rebuilt, recasting costs alot. getting a crew together is like starting a new movie. that kind of *beep* adds up. i wonder how bad or lamer it would have turned out if they kept the original edit...?

the always reliable diane keaton and (surprise!) josh hartnett remain unscathed. hawn is badly lit, and heston and seldes are okay in their profane crudity. not truly BAD, it just lies there, like a bored hooker...

when you won't take "no" for an answer, there's always a chance you'll get what you want..."2046"

reply

[–] 4friedchickensandacoke 15 years ago

The dogs are called Bouvier 's
here is a web site to show..

http://www.nobleairkennels.ca/

reply

[–] director9ff 18 years ago

This film only cost ninety dollars? And it's still a flop? Wow. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Anyway, rewrites, star salaries... everyone else is probably explaining it better than me. I just thought it was funny that you put down $90 instead of $90 million.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] benne666 18 years ago

unbelievable. Serenity and pitch black (just to state an example) costed 40$ and 10$ and this movie over 90$. Hell, i don't even know

So,this Joe, is he cool?
My *beep* is so cool,when he goes to bed,sheep count him.

reply

[–] stranded_in_iowa 18 years ago

I would also assume that with some of the stars in this movie, that the "special requests" that were brought up during filming probably run ALOT of money. Just think of the food and booze bill on it alone! Lobsters flown in live and caviar squeezed fresh from the sturgeons ass are not cheap!

I'm assuming we're all here because of the article on the worst flops? I was actually kind of sad when I saw 13th Warrior on the list. I really liked that movie!

http://360.yahoo.com/profile-yZ3BYCQib7Sb.2hzh1UfLp9ZHpvzAkNv

reply

[–] BbaySMH 18 years ago

Ugh, I hated the 13th Warrior. Although it more then likely is due to thinking the film was gonna be completely differant. It would like be better after a 2nd viewing now knowing what I know.

Let's not forget the real locations they used in "Town & Country" and having to fly everyone back in forth from New York to Paris, to wherever else they shot the film. The question is who thought this type of a film would gross over $90 million to make back the money? This wasn't some huge summer blockbuster or anything. BTW, I think the movie is hilarious.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dechiriko 15 years ago

xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

reply

[–] RadioactiveGirl 17 years ago

I think that is the real question. Personally, I don't think it's the "worst film ever made" pariah that everyone has made it out to be. It's certainly not good. But, I have seen A LOT worse. I wouldn't even say this is in the top 100 worst movies. That being said.....the budget for this movie was beyond asinine! It's inconceivable. And as many posters have already pointed out, the majority undoubtedly went to "star" salaries. It would have had to pull a "Titanic" to make a profit. No way a comedy with Warren Beaty is going to do that! It was 2001 for pity's sake! What was the studio thinking??

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] preppy-3 16 years ago

As tlc5300 said it's Beatty's fault--Warren Beatty is a total control freak. He's one of the reasons this film cost so much. He demanded nonstop rewrites on the script and had to direct things over and over and over. He was never satisfied. Also, originally, he wasn't supposed to direct at all but he bulldozed his way into that. He's getting old and might have panicked and just gone into total control mode thinking he could do everything right. Look what happened. He hasn't made a movie since and chances are VERY good that he won't be asked to do one again. I'm not saying it was all Beatty's fault but his ego really helped kill this.

reply

[–] jeff_bailey44 16 years ago

I saw it the other night on IFC, and it certainly lived up to its hyped reputation as a real stinkeroo. Sad waste of a talent AND money. Even Sun Valley looked boring.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Prom_Queen_Carrie 16 years ago

It was stupid anyway to expect to get a hit with a 90 million dollar budget. I mean come on.

Mama:They're all gonna laugh at you!
Carrie:For reals?Then I'll f*k them UP!

reply

[–] Robbmonster 15 years ago

I could make you a comedy for $90 no worries.

I managed to make a sci-fi film for $230

"It's just a movie" is no excuse for treating us like idiots!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwRqc0KSkJ0

reply

[–] laszlo-11 15 years ago

I bet a better comedy than this COULD be made for $90! :)

reply

[–] filmbuff-36 15 years ago

It's the same situation that caused the budget on Heaven's Gate to spiral out of control 20 years earlier. Giving the filmmakers too much freedom over the production and wasting money on reshoots and countless takes of the same scene.

reply

[–] laszlo-11 15 years ago

It was not the director's fault, but mostly Warren Beatty's. It has always been obvious that he is a hardcore perfectionist who wants things to go his way on a film set, and part of his contract included script approval. They had to write & rewrite until he was satisfied, and he was not averse to actually doing some of that rewriting on the set during filming.

Any clues to as why Warren has not made another film since? His behavior during this one certainly could be a factor.

reply

[–] LazyCrazy 14 years ago

Warren is so delusional in that he thinks he is still a movie star who can do whatever he wants. It is no secret that he is an absolute perfectionist who takes control of his films, actor or producer or director...it doesn't matter what role he has. They shot over a million square feet for this film, which is unusual for most films, especially a comedy. Beatty requires hundreds of takes for a single scene. Is it a surprise that he has only made like 20 films in a nearly 50 year career? I am also not surprised he hasn't made a film since this one.

reply

[–] mwlindsey2000 14 years ago

It was all Warren Beatty's fault. To get a detailed account of the fiasco, check out the Beatty biography by Peter Siskind. Beatty is an overbearing, narcisstic, a-hole who totally took over the film as he did with most of his other films. I have no respect for him after reading this book.

reply