MovieChat Forums > A Sound of Thunder (2005) Discussion > $52M?? No WAY!

$52M?? No WAY!

posted 8 years ago by prodbabies
11 replies | jump to latest

Whoever "estimated" this low budget film with bad CGI cost $52,000,000 is off their rocker!!

NO WAY did this come anywhere near that range.

[–] BigRich 8 years ago

No kidding. $52 million is too low.

According to boxofficemojo.com, it was $80 million:

Domestic Total Gross: $1,900,451
Distributor: Warner Bros. Release Date: September 2, 2005
Genre: Sci-Fi Horror Runtime: 1 hrs. 43 min.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: $80 million

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=soundofthunder.htm

_
Every person that served can be called a veteran, but not every veteran can be called a Marine.

[–] prodbabies 8 years ago

And like I said, WAY TOO high at $52M...I could care less what Boxofficemojo is estimating...these numbers are provided to them... usually by production executives who are trying to inflate budget for resale purposes. This was a low budget piece of crap film. Even with the stars it had, under $10M assuming they paid full actor quotes for the film.

[–] menotherapy 8 years ago

And like I said, WAY TOO high at $52M...I could care less what Boxofficemojo is estimating...these numbers are provided to them... usually by production executives who are trying to inflate budget for resale purposes. This was a low budget piece of crap film. Even with the stars it had, under $10M assuming they paid full actor quotes for the film.

I've wondered the same thing myself. About 3 years ago I came across the wiki page (of course) looking for answers.

At the time, it was much much longer that it is now.

The production page appears to be heavily edited.

Of course, take a look at "Nixon". Watch that film. I could have sworn an Entertainment Weekly article stated the film cost 80 to 90 million.

Now, thanks to wiki...it's only 44. And the entire Internet will believe it.

Because, who really cares about the budget? And who read Entertainment Weekly anymore?

So it's a fact NOW?

I guess, right??

[–] moondawg_32304 8 years ago

Actually just read an article that no more than 30 million was spent. Trivia gives details why it cost so much.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] prodbabies 8 years ago

I would not even believe $30M. This has very poor low budget effects. It is almost standard practice to inflate budgets on films (especially if they did poorly at BO or had no BO release), in an attempt to get more money in the ancillary markets.

This film had no BIG stars (Ben Kingsley being the biggest), so the cost of cast was not huge and money was not spent on effects. It was a production of independent companies, who are famous for trying to state any budget they THINK they can get away with stating it had.

Even allowing for $10M is high, and it was money wasted....such a bad film.

$52M??? HA!

[–] supernamek14 8 years ago

You have to put it into context.

This movie was made in 2002. And it was effect-heavy, which at the time were more expensive than they are now. They had their sets damaged by flooding, so they had to rebuild. Actors were paid more in the late 90s, early 2000s than they are now. We're talking about a time when major stars were paid 25-30 mil per movie. Edward Burns had some momentum during this time, it entirely possible that he got something like 5 million for this movie.

The effects in this movie were never finished. You can see that the creatures lack textures and details. It was released 2 years after its scheduled release date. You also have to factor in that they probably cut scenes that had effects in them that weren't very advanced. So they left out a lot of footage.

They had a lot of trouble making this.

It's unfair to judge this movie as it was never truly finished. They had to put together what they had and release something. I'm sure if the production company hadn't gone bankrupt, they would have made a more decent film.

We don't know what this would have looked liked if it was done right.

[–] prodbabies 8 years ago

I'll agree with you that effects may have cost more and studios are paying actors less (hence all the big names that do commercials in America now when that was still taboo years ago and a sign your career was basically over and declining), YET budgets are higher than ever (going to the 12 Producers films have these days).

Edward Burns never had enough momentum to get a $5M payday, nowhere near it....no just as an actor.

Yes the effects are awful and the fact that they were not finished likely means they were not fully paid for as well, thus the movie cost less.

As for the last two comments: It's unfair to judge this movie as it was never truly finished...." Absolutely disagree. EVERY RIGHT to judge any film that they release for viewers to see. Simple fact is nobody outside of the industry cares how much the film cost. It cost the customer the same at the box office. All films have their challenges throughout production and few films turn out exactly the way they were originally intended....under you're view, I guess we shouldn't hail Jaws a success because of all the issues they dealt with?? As it would be unfair to judge it! NOTHING went right in that film (and famously so) and yet a young director named Spielberg found a way to make it work.

In the end, your film is judged on what you put out there. People spend there time and/or money watching it, nobody cares about hearing why it was bad, cause the result is a bad film. No one wants to hear the excuses.

We don't know what this would have looked liked if it was done right. OK?? See all the points above. Woulda, coulda, shoulda....nobody cares what you imagine it could have been. Geez, I could apply that to nearly every bad or mediocre film out there, "Well if they had done this or that, maybe it would have been better."

It is a film, it has been released for audiences to view...and it is a BAD FILM! Don't care WHY its bad, its bad! Simple.

Finally, still don't see anything suggesting its a $52M film and none of the actors (usually a huge chunk of a budget back then) support that. If you worked in the industry you'd also realize that production companies (especially independents) are always trying to inflate the real cost to whatever they feel they can get away with. This is part of the sales tactics when selling the market rights.

[–] supernamek14 8 years ago

I agree that budgets are inflated. I'm not saying that this movie did in fact cost 52 million, I'm just saying that it might be close.

Big budget movies cost a lot today because the effects are more complex and it takes a lot of people to make them. Most people don't understand but thousands of people work on effects in superhero movies and the like. Before less people worked on the and they charged more, the work wasn't nearly as complex but it cost more. Now more people are trained but the effects are more vast and more people are needed.

Iron Man 3 has something like three thousand CGI artists credited. But I can tell you for a fact, that more than double probably worked on the film. I work near a CGI studio, which employs about 200-300 people and I know from talking to them that over 50 of their people worked on the effects, yet only 3 are credited. So big studios outsource the effects to hundreds of small studios that work on like 3-4 seconds of the film. Which is done because the effects have to get done in a few months, all that costs money.

I also talked to someone that had a pivotal role in the production of the movie Oblivion with Tom Cruise and he told me that the budget wasn't nearly as big as it was reported.

I also said that it's unfair to judge it, meaning, that what was on screen was not the version they were aiming for. It probably had a part of the story cut out, plot was thinned, effects was horrible and so on. So, what was planned and what ended up on screen were two different things. And, I agree the final product was not good, but I was left with a feeling it could have been much more than what it was. Or what it should have been.

In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if this movie cost a lot but we'll never know, all we can do is speculate.

[–] prodbabies 8 years ago

OK, but NONE of your first three paragraphs would support a $52M budget, and in fact supports my argument. These were not well done effects that took forever to do, it is cheap looking effects.

Your fourth paragraph totally supports what I said about how many companies will try and state it cost whatever they can get away with stating it costs. At least in "Oblivion" they did have high actor fees.

AS to Paragraph 5, I hold to my previous comments. It is 100% fair to judge the final product. As I, or any film goer, who plunks down their money to see a film does not care what problems they encountered. Maybe it's a crap film because of the problems...SO?? it is still a crap film.

As for your last comment, I worked in the accounting areas of the industry for MANY years, I have no problem in stating with 100% certain fact, this film cot no where near $52M...not even close. And if it even came more than half way to that budget.....line up those involved and shoot 'em, no need for their abilities in the future.

[–] mojo2004 7 years ago

It wasn't 80 mill or 52 mill.

The film, announced in 2001, was originally going to be directed by Renny Harlin, star Pierce Brosnan in the main role, and be shot in Montreal. Harlin was fired over a disagreement with Ray Bradbury. Brosnan left the project as well and was replaced by Edward Burns.

After Franchise Pictures went bankrupt during post-production, the remaining backers provided only $30 million to work with, out of the $80 million originally allocated. Previsualization software was used.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
The truth of life has been revealed.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬