Elessar Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 This trilogy will surely go down as one of the most misconceived projects in recent film history.Hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 With a 270 million Production budget, then 400 million will be the absolute minimum spent making and marketing the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Hyperbole.That hopefully lives up to its promise. May many movies in 2013 have attractions that make Smaug look like Charmin Ultra`s bear kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) With a 270 million Production budget, then 400 million will be the absolute minimum spent making and marketing the film.No movie starring big stars should have that kind of a budget let alone one loaded with Z-listers. Where did that money go? Apparently not on CGI either because I`m hearing complaints it wasn`t all that hot save for Gollum. Edited December 23, 2012 by fishnets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druv10 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) When fishnets is the voice of reason then you know something is truly wrong. Edited December 23, 2012 by druv10 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 When fishnets is the voice of reason then you know something is truly wrong. :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 No movie starring big stars should have that kind of a budget let alone one loaded with Z-listers. Where did that money go? Apparently not on CGI either because I`m hearing complaints it wasn`t all that hot save for Gollum.I dunno how anybody could watch The Hobbit and think it's anything but a massive budget movie. Granted, I do realize most people don't have a clue what goes into actually making a movie though and are horrible at estimating why things cost a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) I dunno how anybody could watch The Hobbit and think it's anything but a massive budget movie. Granted, I do realize most people don't have a clue what goes into actually making a movie though and are horrible at estimating why things cost a lot of money.There are massive budgets and massive budgets and this one is ridic. Especially since even NZ tax breaks, which are supposedly the reason why the production must remain there, cannot lower the cost under $250 mio per movie. Sorry but that`s just insane. If people can clobber TLR for being a $250 mio western they sure should clobber this for costing $270 mio after NZ tax shit.That production is cheaper in NZ is obviously one big fat lie. This,KK and Avatar are proof. Edited December 23, 2012 by fishnets 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druv10 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 There are massive budgets and massive budgets and this one is ridic. Especially since even NZ tax breaks, which are supposedly the reason why the production must remain there, cannot lower the cost under $250 mio per movie. Sorry but that`s just insane. If people can clobber TLR for being a $250 mio western they sure should clobber this for costing $270 mio after NZ tax shit.That production is cheaper in NZ is obviously one big fat lie. This,KK and Avatar are proof.I thought the budget for Hobbit was 200M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I thought the budget for Hobbit was 200M.WB said the budget for 2 movies was $500 mio. That`s $250 mio per movie. Now there are 3 movies + reshoots. Kiss $500 mio goodbye. They are not going to do all that without adding more cash on top of already ridic pile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLK Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I think the whole splitting into three has complicated issues. The budget for the project was apparently around $500 million (two movies) but now that they have split it into three it comes down to $170 million per movie. The kicker is that the budget is still increasing and may reach $600 million for three. So... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I think the whole splitting into three has complicated issues. The budget for the project was apparently around $500 million (two movies) but now that they have split it into three it comes down to $170 million per movie. The kicker is that the budget is still increasing and may reach $600 million for three. So...Of course it complicated issues. They have to pay people who will be working on post prod til 2014 whereas originally all worked should have been finished in 2013. Then they have to adjust actor`s pay for 3 movies instead of 2 at least those who appear in all 3. There was a scandal with Three Musketeers from 1970s when the movie was split in 2 but actors were paid only for one. The case was won and created prescendant so they must pay actors. In other words, they aren`t getting the thrid movie gratis out of old budget but it`ll add up to the budget maybe not as another $250 mio entity but definitely not under $100 mio either all costs of prolonged production considered. And it`ll have just as big marketing cost as the other two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 There are massive budgets and massive budgets and this one is ridic. Especially since even NZ tax breaks, which are supposedly the reason why the production must remain there, cannot lower the cost under $250 mio per movie. Sorry but that`s just insane. If people can clobber TLR for being a $250 mio western they sure should clobber this for costing $270 mio after NZ tax shit.That production is cheaper in NZ is obviously one big fat lie. This,KK and Avatar are proof.How is it ridiculous? I mean, do you even have a clue how expensive films can get? The Hobbit's budget isn't really that much larger than other titles, and if any movie should get a $270M budget, this is one that makes a lot of sense. I'm going to ignore that you, and I, don't actually have any clue how much this movie costs. Besides, this "lie" you're ranting about ain't a lie. Tax breaks exist. But I don't know why this surprises you...there was a movie from 2008, that cost more than The Hobbit did, that shot in NZ. So it's not like this should be surprising that it can cost a couple hundred million dollars to make a movie in NZ. No country can turn a $300M project into a $150M no matter where you shoot, you're not understanding what these people are talking about if you think they can. I don't know what experience you've had working around budgets of films, but I think this "lie" you're complaining about is just more an understanding problem. I doubt anyone is lying, I've worked around production incentives before, they are very real. But clearly, you've overestimated how big they are.And really, what's so ridiculous about The Hobbit costing $270M? The movie looks expensive, and it's as good a bet as any to sink that type of money into. I mean, the chances of this film losing money at that budget were really small...just look, even at its disappointing performance level, it's still going to make hundreds of millions of dollars of profit for its producer. Should be obvious why they're comfortable spending that type of dough. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) I like AUJ an awful lot and the trilogy decision doesn't bother me personally now that I've seen it, however it was not necessary at all judging by this first film. Some bloat could have been cut in the first half allowing for them to get through to the middle of the book in this movie with maybe an extra 10 minute run time or so, and I think that would have went over a whole lot better with the general public. Edited December 23, 2012 by HobbitMan89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I think the whole splitting into three has complicated issues. The budget for the project was apparently around $500 million (two movies) but now that they have split it into three it comes down to $170 million per movie. The kicker is that the budget is still increasing and may reach $600 million for three. So...The deal Jackson had with WB was they'd allow him to shoot 48fps on two conditions: that he be able to deliver a perfectly normal 24fps version, and that he not go over budget. During the discussions when they were expanding from two films to three, Jackson offered to pay any overages himself. So, we can draw two general points from this: the additional budget required to shoot the additional footage is not going to be dramatically more (since he can't afford it), and WB is on the hook for the same general amount they were for the two-film project.I'm assuming that's around $500-$600m for all the movies (production budget), plus an additional $100m per for marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I like AUJ an awful lot and the trilogy decision doesn't bother me personally now that I've seen it, however it was not necessary at all judging by this first film. Some bloat could have been cut in the first half allowing for them to get through to the middle of the book in this movie with maybe an extra 10 minute run time or so, and I think that would have went over a whole lot better with the general public.Even if you take out about 30 minutes, I think you'd be hard-pressed to get them through Mirkwood and the Elves in that period of time. I think he started realizing he was looking at a first film well in excess of three hours and that's where the decision to split things up came form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayumanggi Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I don't know, but I think 300 M is not happening. A little bit disappointed here. I hope it rebounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishstick Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 And really, what's so ridiculous about The Hobbit costing $270M?What`s so ridiculous about TLR costing $250 mio? It`s a double standard if one is hammered because f its budget and another is given a pass.Also, when filming KK, PJ was saying that movie like that would have costed over $200 mio in US and that he`d make it for $150 in NZ. The budget balooned to $205 mio. So either tax break isn`t as big advantage as PJ wants us to believe or he can`t keep the budget in check despite tax break help. So if we go with the second scenario than I wouldn`t rule out additional cost of the thrird movie going up to $200 mio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) 300 HAS to happen for my mental well being. I absolutely will not accept that it won't at least do that. I do know lots of people who are saving it for their Xmas movie so that gives me some hope. Edited December 23, 2012 by HobbitMan89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 300 HAS to happen for my mental well being. I absolutely will not accept that it won't at least do that. Well... you may have a problem 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
