300s budget dosnt add up at DVinfo.net

Alan James · April 5th, 2007, 11:49 AM

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?

Ash Greyson · April 5th, 2007, 01:37 PM

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)

Chris C. Collins · April 5th, 2007, 02:55 PM

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.

Gary McClurg · April 5th, 2007, 02:58 PM

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...

Chris C. Collins · April 5th, 2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary McClurg

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.

Ash Greyson · April 5th, 2007, 05:19 PM

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)

Alan James · April 6th, 2007, 12:54 PM

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.

Ash Greyson · April 8th, 2007, 08:10 PM

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)

Liam Hall · April 9th, 2007, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan James

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?

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.

Chris C. Collins · April 9th, 2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

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

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

Good movies cost money.

Liam Hall · April 9th, 2007, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris C. Collins

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.

Vincent Wong Yoon Wei · April 9th, 2007, 09:32 AM

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.

Jay Kavi · April 9th, 2007, 06:15 PM

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.

Theodore McNeil · May 27th, 2007, 09:08 PM

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.

Ash Greyson · May 27th, 2007, 11:28 PM

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

ash =o)

April 5th, 2007, 11:49 AM	#1
Alan James Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 261	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?

April 5th, 2007, 01:37 PM	#2
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	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)

April 5th, 2007, 02:55 PM	#3
Chris C. Collins Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Muskegon, Michigan Posts: 75	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.

April 5th, 2007, 02:58 PM	#4
Gary McClurg Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Springfield, MO, USA Posts: 389	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...

April 5th, 2007, 05:19 PM	#6
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	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)

April 6th, 2007, 12:54 PM	#7
Alan James Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tampa, Florida Posts: 261	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.

April 8th, 2007, 08:10 PM	#8
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	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)

April 9th, 2007, 09:32 AM	#12
Vincent Wong Yoon Wei New Boot Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Malaysia Posts: 5	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.

April 9th, 2007, 06:15 PM	#13
Jay Kavi Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 243	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.

May 27th, 2007, 09:08 PM	#14
Theodore McNeil Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Centreville, Maryland Posts: 258	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.

May 27th, 2007, 11:28 PM	#15
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Yes, P&A can often equal or exceed the budget. ash =o)