MovieChat Forums > Carnage (2011) Discussion > Where did the $25 million go?

Where did the $25 million go?

posted 11 years ago by NormanCroucher
12 replies | jump to latest

The actors paychecks?

I mean, there were great performances but that set-build couldn't have cost THAT much to put together.

Did each actor ask for $5 mill each or something and the other 5 went on production? This movie could have been made as equally as good for $1 million.

The budget was definitely inflated.

Still, enjoyed the movie. Wish it had gotten nastier at the end though. Never quite saw its ideas through to their logical conclusion. The adults acting like their children - someone should have had two teeth knocked out to bring it full circle.

Oh well!

[–] raulfaust 10 years ago

Why should we care about it? It's a studio's business, and that would make no difference in our lives

[–] NormanCroucher 10 years ago

We care about all sorts of sh!t that makes no difference in our lives raul. Imdb is one of them but you still come on here to post useless comments all the same.

[–] raulfaust 10 years ago

What I meant is that you're making a question that will have no answer in this board, since it's a private studio business.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CobainsGreenhouse 10 years ago

I think that figure includes things like - catering, camera and mic rentals, post editing, trailer rentals (for dressing rooms etc), props...

That being said, I would think it could easily be done on a smaller budget as well.

[–] tigerbos 10 years ago

That's considered 'small budget' in Hollywood...doubtful they made very much money doing this film.

On a side note, I thought this film was awful...despite the fact that I like the work of all the actors involved.

RIP Philip Seymour Hoffman 1967-2014... a tremendously great and talented actor.

[–] ahrawrah 10 years ago

That's a good question. It could've been done on a $10 million budget, considering these people are trapped in one apartment.

[–] RoutineAlpha 10 years ago

Waltz and JCR should have made at least 3-4 each, foster and winslet likely a bit more. it's not like that's huge for actors, espacially considering they are all in almost every scene of the movie. Add crew and maybe even marketing (they also went for award promotion), licensing, screenplay etc and the fact that they had to film it all overseas, since Polanski couldn't work in the US. 25 seems not that unreasonable really. sure you could have made it with lesser actors and a different director in an nyc flat for a lot less, but it wouldn't have been the same movie. if the studio was only interested in saving budget and making big money, they wouldn't have made this film in the first place anyway.

[–] DaliParton 10 years ago

They probably used it as part of an accounting scheme in order to hide profits from another picture. Such games are so common they are literally known as "hollywood accounting."

https://www.google.com/search?q=hollywood+accounting

[–] terryperring104 10 years ago

I think you could make a film like this-with unknowns- for about $25,000.
The money must have gone on the stars salaries. And maybe a little puke CGI

[–] spaceman88 9 years ago

Don't forget they had to green-screen Manhattan in the windows. Polanski could not film this in the USA.

Still, I agree that the budget is quite high.

[–] Foster (876) a year ago

Hahahaha I thought it was a heck of a cheap deal

You got I actress with 2 Academy Awards for Best Actress
You got another actress with a single Academy Award for Best Actress
You got an actor with 2 Academy Awards for best Supporting Actor

That would eat up 1/2 the 25M$
Shot in Paris --- Much cheaper that NYc where it is set
Doubt they did green screen as someone said -- Surly they could find a view in Paris that looks like Central Park
Production costs at the 10M$ mark would be cheap in 2011