Seriously $9.8 million of that must have been actor and crew salaries cause there's no other production costs apparent from viewing. It could pass as a really good student film aside from all the A (or more acurately, B) list actors in it.
Decent flick anyway, just sayin! Some producer must have gotten his ass reamed for losing money on this film.
[deleted]
$9 million were paid to the guy who clicked the zoom in/out button.
http://bestflashwebsites.blogspot.com
That'll be a buck per zoom then.
shareYes I'm sure for this very dry and slow as a snail paced movie Sarandon must've cost plenty to sign on. I'm about to go to another channel but thought I would chime in. Oh I forgot Rae Dawn Chong appears. It has all the charm of dry toast and the scenes with Sarandon and Chong are the movies saving grace.
shareYou have to pay a lot of location costs, for example paying for hotel/motel rooms for the film crew. Also camera equipment, lighting, soundtrack music, etc is pretty expensive. And you have to pay people to run the equipment, do the editing, cinematography, and advertising. And I'm sure I've just scratched the surface.
Follow me on twitter @sydsmoviepicks
Why on Earth would they pay the crew for hotel fees? You think they are going to fly a gaffer in from Hollywood? The majority of the crew are local and work on various movies there. You see these same people over and over.
And the shooting schedule might be like 30 days. Ten or so people in hotels for 30 days isn't going to cause a budget fallout. Food for the entire crew can be more expensive.
I can buy the 10 million dollar budget. This isn't Clerks where it is a director getting his friends to work for free and then putting the camera in a place and letting people talk. I mean even at actor minimum wage it would still be expensive to have Jason Segel and Susan Sarandon there. Plus they did have a scene with some high speed driving which requires closing off a street, a professional driver a a way to film it. Plus they either wrecked or at least made it looked like they wrecked at least one porche. Plus at the end they closed off that huge bridge, set up a car crash on the road, had a car in the water and had to do stunts with two actors jumping off the bridge and then filming them in the water. I can easily see the stuff in the water with all the people you need involved and the equipment and the permits costing over a million bucks by itself.
shareMuch lower budget TV shows can close streets and hire stunt drivers. I doubt that would pass a $5000 dollar mark. Stunt people are dirt cheap in the film/TV business.
That huge half mile bridge was in the middle of freaking nowhere that ran along side an interstate, so it wouldn't have cause anyone any trouble. I can't imagine that cost them too much to close off.
"A film's production budget includes all costs incurred during pre-production, filming, post-production and promotion. That includes buying the rights to the script, actor's salaries, production staff salaries, set construction, special effects, wardrobe, craft services, marketing, dog training -- everything! How much does "everything" cost? The average production budget of a major studio film in 2007 was $106 million [source: MPAA]".
Marketing alone can cost a lot. $35.9 million on average.
This movie could have cost $3 million alone just to advertize it.
Sarandon, Segel, and Helms' salaries probably make up 75% or more of that I'm sure. The budget doesn't seem all that surprising to me.
The password is Fidelio
I agree, a movie just like this with less known actors could have been easily achieved with a 3 million budget. And promotion of the film, which is also very expensive. Hey 28 days later cost around 8 million, and they closed and crashed a few things in LONDON.
share[deleted]
Pulp fiction, a hugely more ambitious film, costed $8M to make, which is roughly $13M in today's currency. Still, not that much. So it's obvious to me whoever budgeted this movie wasn't intending on saving much money.
sharePulp Fiction was almost 20 years ago and 28 Days later 10 years ago. Compare it to a film from last year.
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
The actors probably reduced or took back end deals hoping the movie would be a big hit. Sometimes big named actors like doing independent movies for nothing just because they can and believe in the project.
share