300s budget dosnt add up
 

So I was just now looking at 300s budget on IMDB. It was budgeted at 60,000,000$. Now I’m wondering to myself how that’s possible when Sin City was 40,000,000$ and it was shot digital. 300 was shot on 35mm and used loads of slow motion. As far as I know each shot (or at least most) had digital effects added to them. A lot were complex 3d shots where the camera moved in 3d space and thus had to be tracked, a very complex and costly process. Sin City on the other hand was shot digital and RR used almost every budget saving technique out there to keep it low. How is it that a movie shot digital and a movie shot film can be so close in budget and both very low in budget, considering what they look like. When I am figuring in the cost of celluloid all the slow motion, scanning, and complex 3d shots in my mind there should be more of a difference then 20 million. What was 300s secret?

You can never compare from film to film, each thing is its own monster. Producers lining their pockets, talent getting overpaid, etc. etc. Grindhouse, according to some higher ups at Weinstein that I personally know, cost "upwards of $100,000,000"



ash =o)

Maybe Frank Miller is just really good at holding his pennies.

I do understand where you're coming from though, that is quite odd. I also agree with Ash though, each film is its own monster.

But there is no Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba, and others in 300... I haven't seen... will next week... but I thought I heard for a big movie and the big office it took in.... that was pretty good since their were no named actors in it...

Well they are named now, that's almost certain. This film has been one of the biggest successes this year and its all thanks to an amazing ad campaign and an even more amazing trailer. As a matter of fact it was voted best trailer on some movie review site.

Let me also add that currently, the amount of money saved by going digital versus film is marginal in most cases. Most people are shocked to hear that but the digital workflow introduces some problems that are currently very expensive to take care of...



ash =o)

What kind of problems? I've never heard anyone say that digital was about the same but it seems to be. I'm a big RR fan and he is always saying on all his DVDs that digital is loads cheaper, but I have the feeling that hes just siding with digital because he likes other aspects of it. I think he exaggerates the cost savings.

Currently, digital is very expensive to store and back-up. You cant shoot a $50mil movie to HDDs you buy at Sam's. Also, there is an IT element introduced, different monitoring, etc. etc. etc. Any money "saved" generally will line the pockets of the producers.



ash =o)

I'm no mathmatician, but I'd have thought a 30% increase in budget, particularly when taking into account the 'no name' cast, represents a significant increase in budget - far beyond the additional cost of shooting film.

Give me the $20,000,000 and I'll shoot you a dozen movies on 35mm film.

Liam.

Yeah sure, but will you shoot a dozen GREAT movies?

Good movies cost money.

I probably wouldn't shoot a dozen great movies. But then if I had $2,000,000,000 I probably wouldn't either. You need talent.

I think Robert Rodriguez did quite well with just some small change, as did his mate Quentin Tarratino. The makers of 'Run Lola Run' made a great picture with the money the director saved from his paper round. The Evil Dead, American Graffiti, Clerks and The Blair Witch Project are all great films made for the same money the makers of '300' probably spent on baby oil.

Money doesn't equal talent and neither do you need a great deal of it to make a great movie. Just ask Woody Allen.

Probably it's just me but don't you think 40 million is really cheap (by Hollywood standards) for a movie with Bruce Willies, Jessica Alba, Clive Owen, Brittany Murphy, Froddo, and lots lots more?

On the other hand, I once read that film is like not even 10% of the cost in Hollywood. Film is disposable to them.

From my experience, in a production, the most expensive thing is time. Probably the reason Hollywood movies are so expensive is because they take forever to shoot. It's not film that is expensive. It is the amount of time they had to spend on shooting on film that is expensive.

Here, a typical film production takes one month. With digital, it's less than two weeks. here, we rarely see telemovies shot on film these days because it is just faster(cheaper) to shoot digital.

I think of Vincent found the magic ingredient: time. Sin City was pretty long if i remember correctly. Longer movie = longer production, and of course all those assistants RR used are paid by the day (im assuming actors worked for scale. so there is your 40 mil. And thats not counting post time. I think that once movies cross the 10-15mil barrier film is the cheapest aspect of the movie.

Alan, i agree that RR probably inflates his cost savings a bit. Its a great way to build hype (and create similar discussions to the one we have here)

Chris, whoever told you "good movies cost money" doesnt want you to be a filmmaker. I'm with Liam, gimme $20 million and ill give you quite a few films shot on 35mm. Good is a relative term, but I'm sure with those kind of odds one of them will be popular.

There is another cost you are all leaving out.

Correct me if this is wrong, but I remember a producer telling me that the merchandising, promotional and distribution costs are added into the final cost of the movie.

A half to a third of the dollars are spent on posters, highway signs, press junkets, talent appearances, TV spots, trailers, etc... PLUS making 5,000 prints getting them out to 5,000 theaters all on the same day.

That's a lot of money.

Yes, P&A can often equal or exceed the budget.



ash =o)