|
I've never really looked into it , but with financing they're always mentioning these budgets of 160 million dollars, but where does the main bulk of that go on big huge movies? Like how do you actually spend 160 million dollars? Or are their budgets for things like Transformers artifically inflated?
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Feeding, housing and transporting a large crew is expensive for one thing, especially if you're going to be anywhere remote. TF4 has stuff shot in Wulong National Park, for example, which basically requires setting up a small town for everyone to stay in plus generators powering the whole thing. Light and camera rentals is several million on their own. CGI on effects pictures requires a shitton of man hours. Then there's obv. stuff like the salaries of big stars and directors as well. Tons of expenses and it all adds up fast. More often public budgets of big pictures are estimated very low.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Also people have posted in here a lot about how studios hide expenses for other movies in the budget to manipulate the stated earnings or income for a successful movie, like basically perpetrating outright fraud by writing confusing budgets and keeping weird ledgers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I've never really looked into it , but with financing they're always mentioning these budgets of 160 million dollars, but where does the main bulk of that go on big huge movies? Sit through the end credits. Look at how many loving people there are. Then imagine that they are all getting paid for weeks and months at studio rates (much higher than indies) and if shooting anywhere on location, as others have mentioned, they need food, transport and accommodation. Think of the sets that need to be built and dressed. The cost of huge VFX/CGI shots. Then fees of millions for the writers, director, lead cast, and producers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Also people have posted in here a lot about how studios hide expenses for other movies in the budget to manipulate the stated earnings or income for a successful movie, like basically perpetrating outright fraud by writing confusing budgets and keeping weird ledgers. Hollywood accounting. Basically movies always cost more than they report they do and they never make as much as it's reported they do. They do of course, but when you have countless people getting points and backends it's in the studio's best interest to make sure that whatever happens, the movie turns in a very small profit. Cue that document that 'proves' that one of the Harry Potter movies made exactly $0.00. It was also the source of disupte between Peter Jackson and New Line. New Line talk for years about how succesful Lord of the Rings was, and then when it's time to pay Peter Jackson decide that as it so happens, they really didn't turn a profit after all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
I seem to remember reading the He-Man movie was originally a script for a different franchise -- or a different movie's script was originally a He-Man spec. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I seem to remember reading the He-Man movie was originally a script for a different franchise -- or a different movie's script was originally a He-Man spec. Anyone know what I'm talking about? It was originally gonna be a movie of Jack Kirby's New Gods.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Jack Kirby's New Gods. Makes sense. I was thinking comic books, but I couldn't quite come up with it. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Hollywood accounting. Basically movies always cost more than they report they do and they never make as much as it's reported they do. They do of course, but when you have countless people getting points and backends it's in the studio's best interest to make sure that whatever happens, the movie turns in a very small profit. Cue that document that 'proves' that one of the Harry Potter movies made exactly $0.00. It's also called: Normal Accounting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:It's also called: Normal Accounting. This is true, but Hollywood seems more two-faced because they are constantly advertising both the budget of films and how much money they make in the box-office.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:It's also called: Normal Accounting. Guy who works for movie studio downplays shady poo poo movie studios do, to the surprise of everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Guy who works for movie studio downplays shady poo poo movie studios do, to the surprise of everyone. I wish I worked for a movie studio. But to elaborate - the term "Hollywood Accounting" came from an entertainment reporter who never had looked at a balance sheet. I'm sure that even the iPhone is an on-paper loser for Apple so they can claim tax deductions/credits/etc. It's a term that bloggers love to throw around because it makes them seem more of an insider, but there's no special techniques or tricks that any other corporation isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Snak posted:This is true, but Hollywood seems more two-faced because they are constantly advertising both the budget of films and how much money they make in the box-office. And there's nobody who's suckered into developing the iPhone with the promise of net profits that never materialize.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
http://youtu.be/bHL91HQzhuc
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Guy who works for movie studio downplays shady poo poo movie studios do, to the surprise of everyone. General Electric hasn't made a profit in America for a couple decades now (according to their tax return). Also, here's a list of ten companies that aren't movie studios
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
NeuroticErotica posted:I wish I worked for a movie studio. The difference is the number of third-party participants. Come on, you know this stuff. The music industry is probably similar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
therattle posted:The difference is the number of third-party participants. Come on, you know this stuff. They call it the Seagal Effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
therattle posted:The difference is the number of third-party participants. Come on, you know this stuff. The music industry is much worse, if for no other reason than there is a much higher percentage of people with stupid money who you can bamboozle. That said, it happens with all accounting. I don't think the percentage is that much higher in Hollywood, it's just that there are thousands of agreements for each movie where you can fool the unwary, coupled with higher public exposure in general.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
therattle posted:The difference is the number of third-party participants. Come on, you know this stuff. therattle posted:The difference is the number of third-party participants. Come on, you know this stuff. I think you're discounting how many outside participants in other industries. Yes, music is rife with it, but so is tech and probably a ton of other ones. It's funny the Freakazoid clip got posted, it's such an heirloom of its time. A lot of kids step off the bus thinking they know this little insider tip, when nobody's gotten a deal like that in well over a decade besides the biggest of the big.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Probably easiest these days to just get upfront fees and not worry about residuals messing up contract negociations?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 09:23
|
|
|
Residuals are determined by the union negotiations. If you're a huge, huge, huge name in the industry or held a hot commodity you could negotiate points (gross or net) in addition. However as the money pool continues to shrink, the chances of this are less likely. They're practically non-existent today, already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
Snak posted:This is true, but Hollywood seems more two-faced because they are constantly advertising both the budget of films and how much money they make in the box-office. I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that it's easier for the general public to see that "Hollywood" accounting is two-faced because the "budget" of films is flaunted about so much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
Lars von Trier often uses a technique I quite like, particularly while filming conversations, where he'll "cut" to a shot of the same person from the same angle (essentially creating the affect that a few moments of time have been skipped). Rather than taking me out of the film, it actually seems natural and draws me into the conversation more. What is technique called, and are there other directors who use it well? edit: I guess this is just a jump cut? Still I'm interested in other examples outside of Trier and the French New Wave BOAT SHOWBOAT fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:Lars von Trier often uses a technique I quite like, particularly while filming conversations, where he'll "cut" to a shot of the same person from the same angle (essentially creating the affect that a few moments of time have been skipped). Rather than taking me out of the film, it actually seems natural and draws me into the conversation more. What is technique called, and are there other directors who use it well? Just rewatched The Host (Korean monster movie, not the pseudo-Twilight bomb) and there's a sequence of a kid listing all the foods he's going to eat once he gets out of this sewer/monster's lair and they do this. It's pretty cute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
You mean the technique that KFC has been using for their commercials lately? I hate that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Cage posted:You mean the technique that KFC has been using for their commercials lately? Those commercials just make it seem like there have been 50 takes and they Frankenstein some of them together. There are like 3 cuts in the span of 3 words. gently caress whatever that technique is. Not to mention its one of those like weird fake blog to no one kind of setups, too. Those commercials are putrid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:Lars von Trier often uses a technique I quite like, particularly while filming conversations, where he'll "cut" to a shot of the same person from the same angle (essentially creating the affect that a few moments of time have been skipped). Rather than taking me out of the film, it actually seems natural and draws me into the conversation more. What is technique called, and are there other directors who use it well? The way he makes it work is, he asks the actors to do several, wildly different takes. One take they play it straight, another like a comedy, yet another while they are angry etc. Then he splices it all together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Cage posted:You mean the technique that KFC has been using for their commercials lately? it's also way overused by Youtubers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:Lars von Trier often uses a technique I quite like, particularly while filming conversations, where he'll "cut" to a shot of the same person from the same angle (essentially creating the affect that a few moments of time have been skipped). Rather than taking me out of the film, it actually seems natural and draws me into the conversation more. What is technique called, and are there other directors who use it well? Here's a bit of the Breaking the Waves commentary track talking about this (one of the commentators calls it a "brutal" style).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:it's also way overused by Youtubers. That's just like, regular editing though... Not really the same technique that Lars von Trier is using. If those youtubers could get rid of the cut seamlessly, most of them would...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Snak posted:That's just like, regular editing though... No, when they do it to seem quirky, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQB1QQbmYMI#t=15
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
It's a jump cut. What the gently caress is there to argue about? Trier used this technique before the majority of people even knew what the internet was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Trump posted:It's a jump cut. What the gently caress is there to argue about? Trier used this technique before the majority of people even knew what the internet was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Schweinhund posted:No, when they do it to seem quirky, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQB1QQbmYMI#t=15 Oh, yeah. I actually really dig that for some reason. "My Drunk Kitchen" uses that a lot and I think it works great there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Trump posted:The way he makes it work is, he asks the actors to do several, wildly different takes. One take they play it straight, another like a comedy, yet another while they are angry etc. What's the movie were Willem Dafoe plays a cop and they do this for one scene where he's questioning the main character and it alternates between takes where Dafoe is being really friendly, then hella suspicious and accusatory? (At least I think it's Willem Dafoe).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:What's the movie were Willem Dafoe plays a cop and they do this for one scene where he's questioning the main character and it alternates between takes where Dafoe is being really friendly, then hella suspicious and accusatory? (At least I think it's Willem Dafoe). American Psycho
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Why did the term "Pan and Scan" become inextricably linked to anything that's not in a wide aspect ratio? I understand that many home video releases back before blu-ray were, in fact, panned and scanned to fit 4x3 TVs, but you'd think retailers would have abandoned this archaic (and usually inaccurate) term years ago, but I see it often. For example, the By Brakhage Criterion blu-ray on Barnes and Noble's website is listed as "Blu-ray (pan & scan)". Is there an actual marketing rationale for using the term?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
caiman posted:Why did the term "Pan and Scan" become inextricably linked to anything that's not in a wide aspect ratio? I understand that many home video releases back before blu-ray were, in fact, panned and scanned to fit 4x3 TVs, but you'd think retailers would have abandoned this archaic (and usually inaccurate) term years ago, but I see it often. For example, the By Brakhage Criterion blu-ray on Barnes and Noble's website is listed as "Blu-ray (pan & scan)". Is there an actual marketing rationale for using the term? It's technically correct, since 1.37:1 (aspect ratio he shot at) is wider than the disc's format of 1.33:1 (as per Amazon), so a tiny fraction of film was trimmed ... or panned and scanned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:It's technically correct, since 1.37:1 (aspect ratio he shot at) is wider than the disc's format of 1.33:1 (as per Amazon), so a tiny fraction of film was trimmed ... or panned and scanned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Toebone posted:American Psycho I just went back and rewatched that scene, something always felt 'off' about Dafoe in it but I never realised there were cuts of two different takes until then. Makes a lot of sense, really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 07:33
|
|