MovieChat Forums > Four Christmases (2008) Discussion > Explain to Me Like I'm a 2-Year Old Why ...

Explain to Me Like I'm a 2-Year Old Why This Cost $80 Million to Make?






Well. . .

"The goldfish stays in the picture!"

reply

Vaughn and Witherfork are both about $20 mil right there. You see the supporting cast? Not one unknown actor in there. Voight, Duvall, Spacek, Favreau, Steenburgen. They ain't cheap. Certainly wasn't for the production value. Very little xmas decorations seen throughout the city, and most of the driving scenes were green screened.

Certainly wasn't put into the script.


"If I had ya where I wanted ya, they'd be pumpin your ass full of formaldehyde!"

reply

[deleted]

because. white people.

reply

I too, can only think that it's primarily spent on paying the deep, experienced cast list. It does seem a hell of a lot of money for a rom-com.🐭

reply

Hallmark could have told the same story and just as entertaining, but being 90% cheaper of what
Four Christmases cost to produce.

reply

Although the actors would account for a lot of it, it's pretty much inescapable to conclude that there had to be a LOT of waste. The movie only has something like 6 locations, most of which are living-room sets. The scenes in vehicles have poor-man's process for background (i.e., green screen rather than shot on location). Airport scenes are expensive - there might have been some money spent there.

Given the amount of product placement they should have made this basically for nothing. I suspect they did. The books, if they say 80 million was spent, have to be cooked. They find ways to pad expenses so they can claim no or small profit, thus avoiding tax as well as certain contractual obligations (for example people paid partly in a share of net profit). I can only assume there's corruption happening there.

reply