Deepwater Horizon | 9/30/16 | New Trailer on Page 2 | IMAX confirmed | Budget: 156M

[TimmyRiggins]

Look at that behind the scenes featurette, see the set and understand why the budget is so high, the dough is on screen, stop acting like it's not.

Edited August 26, 2016 by TimmyRiggins

[The Futurist]

14 hours ago, Krissykins said:

I watched this trailer yesterday and I don't think it looks that expensive.

 

Well it'll be very difficult for this to be considered a success unless it makes $300m+  worldwide.

lol, you are aware that every shot from the oil rig is either a giant set or very complex VFX work from ILM, right ?

 

 

[HesAPooka]

On 6/19/2016 at 0:50 PM, John Marston said:

looks good but the budget is 150m. 

[Blankments]

This looks like it has half the budget they're claiming it has, wow

[Chewy]

It looks crazy expensive you guys are nuts

 

Just cuz it doesn't have CGI monsters vomiting acid doesn't mean it's cheap

[Hiccup23]

Why $150M budget? Did they honestly think it would make that much?

 

I doubt this will never make 1/3 of the budget. I can definitely smell bomb and sub 40M finish. 

[Jandrew]

15 minutes ago, Chewy said:

It looks crazy expensive you guys are nuts

 

Just cuz it doesn't have CGI monsters vomiting acid doesn't mean it's cheap

 

Everyone conveniently forgets that water is not cheap nor easy to animate. That's likely where most of the money went. And I think it all looks fine.

[John Marston]

The money definitely shows up on screen. However there is no way it will be profitable in theaters with that budget 

[HesAPooka]

the budget scream "this could work", but the release date screams "we fucked up"!

[Plain Old Tele]

I don't get our obsession with budgets. Assuming we're interested in the movie in the first place, surely we want the best/most effort expended in making sure it's as good as they can get it, no?

 

I know we love playing with fantasy numbers to guess profitability, but sometimes I think we forget they're fantasy numbers.

[Eric Atreides]

2 minutes ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

I don't get our obsession with budgets. Assuming we're interested in the movie in the first place, surely we want the best/most effort expended in making sure it's as good as they can get it, no?

 

I know we love playing with fantasy numbers to guess profitability, but sometimes I think we forget they're fantasy numbers.

Well with a lower budget, that means greater profitability and less of a chance of a movie to fail. A movie I like not failing = happier me.

[Plain Old Tele]

8 minutes ago, CoolEric258 said:

Well with a lower budget, that means greater profitability and less of a chance of a movie to fail. A movie I like not failing = happier me.

 

But there's also this assumption that you can just blindly chop 20...30...50m off a budget without detriment.

[TalismanRing]

3 minutes ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

 

But there's also this assumption that you can just blindly chop 20...30...50m off a budget without detriment.

 

That's a consideration to take when you're green lighting and some movies shouldn't be at certain budgets.

[DAJK]

I wonder if this went over budget or it was planned like this all along.

 

But I agree with Tele; if it takes a bigger budget to make a better movie for us to see, I'm happy.

[Plain Old Tele]

25 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

That's a consideration to take when you're green lighting and some movies shouldn't be at certain budgets.

 

Absolutely. But that's purely from the studio perspective. A movie like this is a one-off, it's not like success or failure will guarantee more sequels. Giving it this sort of budget means they think it has a chance at being a movie that's popular around the world. It shows they're excited enough to actually move forward with it. Whether it ends up being a smart investment or not remains to be seen.

[Jandrew]

2 hours ago, NuTella Lover of Sky Beams said:

I don't get our obsession with budgets. Assuming we're interested in the movie in the first place, surely we want the best/most effort expended in making sure it's as good as they can get it, no? I know we love playing with fantasy numbers to guess profitability, but sometimes I think we forget they're fantasy numbers.

 

I think its less about budgets and more about people on this forum being spoiled when it comes to SFX. Seems some arent satisfied unless the effects look even better than the real thing. Like you said, why dont we worry about if its good, rather than if the fire is photorealistic or not.

[The Futurist]

Money is not about making a better movie, that is entirely subjective.

Money always dictate what is possible to accomplish visually in your movie.

 

Each image you produce for a movie has its technical, logistical & artistic hurdles that cost a certain amount of money and sometimes to make an image happen, you just can't compress the budget.

So if you want to make  a disaster movie set on a oil rig, there is a minimum, natural cost to accomplish this you can't compress unless you take the risk of looking cheap and not be up to the visual and technological standards of filmmaking circa 2016.

 

That s why I am always baffled to see people at BOT always complaning about movies being too expenisve : there are just no cheap ways to do ID4r, Jungle Book, Civil War, BvS, XMen Apoclypse, STB etc because trust me a 100m ID4 or STB, audiences would notice it immedialty and producers wouldn't take that risk.

Your production values must be on part with what the competion is offering, you can't afford to be cheap on a tentpole.

 

And contrary to popular belief , producers are always trying to reduce the costs of their  movie, from your 500 000$ indie to your 300m$ tentpole and the directors of both the indie movie & the tentpole movie will bitch about financial constraints.

 

[Mr Terrific]

This movie might have a strange multiplier within the OW. 

Everybody should be watching Luke Cage on Netflix that Friday. 

[Krissykins]

32 minutes ago, Mr Terrific said:

This movie might have a strange multiplier within the OW. 

Everybody should be watching Luke Cage on Netflix that Friday. 

 

Meh, I dunno. That THR article on Stranger Things ratings suggested that Jessica Jones was watched by less than half the people who watched Daredevil. (~6m total).

 

I don't think Luke Cage will be a big deal.

[Mr Terrific]

I was somewhat kidding, but LUKE CAGE.