MovieChat Forums > The Other Guys (2010) Discussion > movie kinda tanked. why did this cost 10...

movie kinda tanked. why did this cost 100 million dollars?

posted 11 years ago by goofyball
5 replies | jump to latest

don't get me wrong... very good movie. people like it. critics liked it. made 120 million here and 50 overseas which is good for a will ferrell comedy (his films are notorious for doing weak numbers overseas) it's actually will ferrell's 2nd highest grossing movie worldwide behind elf

BUT this thing cost 100 million to make. if this had cost the average cost of a comedy like 40 million then this is a success but in reality this film didn't do that well and is considered a big hit...

i notice will ferrell comedies have unusually high budgets for comedies and aren't as big of hits as they seem

100 million? Why did it cost so much when something like The Heat cost 40 million... and why didn't it do better business because it was a big summer action comedy and seems like it should have done and was expected to do a lot more by the studio

[–] alexander000111 11 years ago

I would assume Ferrell and Wahlberg has salaries around the 20 million mark. And there are lots of action scenes where they do stunts and blow things up which costs a lot of money.. A lot of scenes are in central New York it looks like and they have to close off parts of the city for that. It sounds like a lot of money, but for an action-comedy with A- list actors, location shots and special- effects it's not that much. Not in todays movie-industry. And even though they're not lin leading roles, Sam Jackson, The Rock, Eva Mendes and Michael Keaton are big names and probably don't work for free. I also like the movie, it's bordering on the line of silly, but I like it!

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

"don't get me wrong... very good movie."

Have to agree with you goof, I was blown away when I saw the budget. It's a hell of a lot of money for a film such as this...and I liked it too.

It has good production values, but I never thought I was watching a $100 million film.

[–] TheBeardedWonder 10 years ago

Same here, agree with you completely. I feel the $100,000,000 went to the salaries of the stars, the cameos, the stunts, and a lot of scenes that didnt make the final cut. Just a guess, but it seems like there was a lot of stuff taken out, even in the unrated version.

I love the movie, its silly as hell, but no way did it look like there was a hundred million dollars on the screen. $50 million seems more appropriate, maybe $75, and thats at the high end...

[–] moviemasochism 10 years ago

I think a lot has to do with location. They filmed all over New York City at some major landmarks (which I attribute to the nod to Grand Theft Auto IV). But year, a lot of times to cut costs they will film as much as possible in other cities. This one, they chose to go for broke and eat the cost of filming in NYC (and one scene in Vegas).

[–] Tirkka 8 years ago

Salaries of the actors and actresses are a big factor, but also this, from example (from the trivia section):

The bus crash scene took over forty takes. Thirty busses and seventeen mustangs were destroyed during filming the stunt. Samuel L Jackson insisted on live ammunition being used in this scene, to make it more realistic. Four extras were shot and wounded during filming.

I'm pretty sure 30 buses and 17 Mustangs cost a lot of money.

Also, marketing costs must be included in the 100 million estimate?

"Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and *beep* the prom queen." -John Mason