Where did they spend the extra $75mil on???
Oblivion - Bigger Names (2 Oscar Winners & 3 Time Oscar nominee)
Oblivion - Better CGI (Not hard to be fair)
Oblivion - Expensive sets
Jack - No Marketing
Seriously what happened? How did they spend so much? If it cost what it looks ($60-$70mil) this could of been minor success. Is Singer really that incompetent?
To your last question, I think much points in that direction.
___________
• I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman •
The problem is a main character in Jack (the giants) appear on the screen all the time. And everytime they appear it costs a small fortune.
I remember Joss Whedon talking about sprinkling HULK conservatively through out the movie because whenever he is on scree it costs a lot of money.
Oblivion (from what I know) does not have all CGI characters running around.
Jack should have used humans for giants. Cheaper, more old school feel, and better acting.
That would have saved a bundle.
Agreed!
shareit's bryan singer...what did you expect.
shareJack has CGI characters appearing throughout the movie, Oblivion doesn't. Also, Jack was filmed in 3D.
sharethe character design for the giants was bad. they looked straight out of a shrek movie. would have been better if they looked more like the trolls or the orcs in lotr.
shareAgree with this so much. This movie could have been great but the CGI was just bad. Even for the simplest things like liquid. The Giants just took away a lot, period. I don't feel there is any excuse for it. I read through the credits, saw just how many people were involved in those departments, checked out the budget and on and on but..they could have done better.
I'm not saying they needed to be as good as some of the things in LOTR which was created over a decade before this one, but come on now. While watching my head was trying to find reason. Maybe it's a low budget film, maybe they toned it down to make it less scary/kid friendly (noway I personally don't feel it is) but nope. It's just bad. They tried to play it off by using darkness a lot and not keeping on faces too long or shoving helmets on their heads but toward the end they couldn't do it anymore and I was very underwhelmed. Not even the liquid was right.
I was wondering that myself. I think if it hadn't have cost quite so much it would have at least broken even.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Morgana0x
It did pretty much just that... http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jackthegiantkiller.htm
sharenope, you have to do aprx double the budget to break even, theaters keep roughly 50 percent.
Incorrect. Theaters take in about $1.50 per ticket sold. Studio gets the rest. That's why concessions have always been so high. Long been the standard....
shareplease cite a source for that information because i can find tons to support my comment,i would like to investigate this further.
http://news.yahoo.com/13-secrets-movie-theater-employee-wont-tell-1911 55871--abc-news-movies.html
See reason number 3...
No. Theaters get half now.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
CGI mostly. Jack used more of it. CGI is really expensive especially nowadays where it is being used as a crutch to create a lot of films.
Gone are the days of stop-motion animation or actual model building. As someone mentioned in this thread, it would've been great to see them use actual humans and just camera/scaling work to make them appear giant, but instead they go with CGI because it's 'easy'.
Lord of the rings had gollum and a lot of CGI and it cost only 90 millions ! How can you explain that ? And btw the CGi was great
sharebecause Peter jackson owns WETA Digital , and it was shot in new zealand for cheap
This film only made $65 million domestically so Warner Bros lost a profit of $130 million making a big loss for the studio.
shareYou do realise cinemas do exist outside the us don't you? Studios do get money outside the us!
Yes this is my signature...
I think Singer spent it on Man-whores, just ask his legion of fanboys trolling the board... and yeah, all his films feel and look like TV movies instead of an actual feature film. That is how great a director he is... he makes big budget movies look underwhelming.
shareOblivion may have had a lot of money, talent and big names behind it. But all that doesn't make up for an ass movie.
shareyou are aware that you listed the production budgets... the marketing budgets are never made public
half of the characters... moving parts in jack were CGI and the film was shot in 3D... a very expensive process
Much of the time movie budgets are exaggerated for marketing effect. They are either played up or played down. Because no one cares about seeing a mid-budget movie unless it's a great movie on its own regardless of what it cost to make - how often does that happen?
Examples;
El Mariachi
Rodriguez did in fact shoot it for only $7,000. But what he had was a video tape. It took some $200 - 250,000 more to transfer it to film, blow it up to 35mm, add sub-titles, re color correct it, etc, etc. But who cares about a movie produced for $300k? Now, a movie made for $7,000? That's a curiosity.
Waterworld
It was once claimed to have a $200 mil budget. Now estimates are $175 mil. Really? For what? Other than Kevin Costner the only name was Dennis Hopper. Not a bad actor but not a $20 mil-per-picture type of guy. Yes, the set had to be rebuilt because it got blown down by a storm. But it was basically a one set, one location shoot with a bunch of no-name Australian actors. So who cares?
But if you say it costs $175 - 200 mil then it becomes a curiosity - especially back in 1995.