|
Snowman_McK posted:I found an inflation calculator, The Terminator would have cost just over 15 million, The Matrix would have cost 92 million, and Johnny Mnemonic would have cost either 41 million or 63 (there are two numbers for its budget) Yeah, I'm going to concede the point on cost, I was way off in budget evaluations and should have fact checked rather than go off of my clearly drastically inaccurate memory. Older films aren't the best metric, as the costs and standards of VFX aren't comparable to today, but there's still enough other evidence to undermine what I claimed. Which adds a fourth option to my previous list: They could have scaled down the production. My point regarding the current film being unlikely to get a greenlight without a big name actress (again, it didn't get signed off until ScarJo signed on) still stands, but is kind of moot given something on the scale of Oshii's film would hypothetically have been feasible and an easier pitch for an unknown. It's pretty clearly an ethically superior choice. Edit: Someone mentioned GitS17's budget being unknown. I'm not sure what the final official cost is, but the pitch was $200m. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Mar 27, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
Bugblatter posted:Edit: Someone mentioned GitS17's budget being unknown. I'm not sure what the final official cost is, but the pitch was $200m. Hold the loving phone. $200 MILLION?! Neill Blomkamp could have done that for Elysium money ($115m). poo poo, he could have done it was Chappie or District 9 budgets. Wachowski sisters did their own anime adaptation Speed Racer for just under $100m. Jose Padhilia made Robocop 2014 for about $100 million. You don't need to make a movie like that at $200 million. Young Freud fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Hold the loving phone. $200 MILLION?! None of those have the production values that this film is showing off. I mean I love them and their style of imagery could absolutely have fit GitS, but the film shown in the trailers could not have been done cheap. You're comparing South African and Vancouver location shoots and a small soundstage film to a Hong Kong location shoot with large scale soundstage sets and extensive props and costuming. I'm pretty glad they didn't opt to make Vancouver an HK stand-in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Pre-word-of-mouth is probably going to kill this thing, so $200 million is starting to look like a miscalculation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
Nah, Scarlet Johansen has a lot of pull in international markets that this will be big in. I don't think it's going to be a flop. I think it's going to crush it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Yeah, projections aren't great. Sadly, the message that will likely be received is "audiences don't female leads in new action movies."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:Yeah, projections aren't great. Or "anime adaptations are bad for the box office" (which will probably unfortunately derail the Alita movie and thankfully the Akira remake) and not "Never give Rupert Sanders a chance ever again".
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:None of those have the production values that this film is showing off. I mean I love them and their style of imagery could absolutely have fit GitS, but the film shown in the trailers could not have been done cheap. You're comparing South African and Vancouver location shoots and a small soundstage film to a Hong Kong location shoot with large scale soundstage sets and extensive props and costuming. You think it's more expensive to shoot in Hong Kong than Vancouver? Also, everything we've seen has been in a mid-sized room. If they've got massive soundstages, they're hiding it well. Not to mention that it looks cheap as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:You think it's more expensive to shoot in Hong Kong than Vancouver? I know Vancouver is cheaper. They have significant cost saving incentives for film production, which is why a large volume of mid-budget television and film shoots go there (though Atlanta is overtaking them these days). Shooting on HK's island, by contrast, is extremely expensive. If you think this movie looks cheap... I don't know how to argue with madness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Not to mention that it looks cheap as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:I know Vancouver is cheaper. They have significant cost saving incentives for film production, which is why a large volume of mid-budget television and film shoots go there (though Atlanta is overtaking them these days). Shooting on HK's island, by contrast, is extremely expensive. Mithaldu posted:Do you mean "achievable with little money" or "lacking taste"? A blend of the two. For 200 million dollars, every shot should be 'holy poo poo' yet not a single shot in the trailer had that effect on me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:That actually really surprises me, given Hong Kong's long history of having really good movies made on budgets that wouldn't even cover a Hollywood production's catering. I believe you, it's just surprising. What advantage do you think shooting in HK gave the film, which parts of it look better as a result? The days of Wong Kar-Wai's gorilla shoots are pretty far behind us now. You can still shoot on the mainland affordably, but that has a very different look from the island. Nothing in the world looks like Hong Kong. Chongqing has the verticality and density from a distance, but not the texture and the mix of cluttered but clean when in close (and Chongqing wouldn't be a realistic filming location). I don't know where else you would get those street shots or cityscape plates. It just is a cyberpunk city, but in reality. quote:A blend of the two. For 200 million dollars, every shot should be 'holy poo poo' yet not a single shot in the trailer had that effect on me. I'd argue every shot is gorgeous and I thought that was the standard consensus (Pretty much every article states something along the lines of "it looks dumb but man is it pretty"), but it's a subjective thing I suppose. At any rate, those sets do not look like cheap constructions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:Nothing in the world looks like Hong Kong. Chongqing has the verticality and density from a distance, but not the texture and the mix of cluttered but clean when in close (and Chongqing wouldn't be a realistic filming location). I don't know where else you would get those street shots or cityscape plates. It just is a cyberpunk city, but in reality. Bugblatter posted:I'd argue every shot is gorgeous and I thought that was the standard consensus (Pretty much every article states something along the lines of "it looks dumb but man is it pretty") Pick one in particular. quote:At any rate, those sets do not look like cheap constructions. They also don't look like 200 million dollars worth of sets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Considering they covered every inch we've seen in CGI or shot it on a soundstage, it's still hard to guess what benefit this rendered. It feels more like the 'We grew an entire field of corn' type of movie making. Kind of impressive, but it's not going to actually make a difference. If you've been to HK you'll recognize Soho, Causeway Bay, and the Montane Mansion at least. And they aren't super touched up, aside from the holograms? quote:Pick one in particular. Jesus, that's asinine. I'm fond of the photography in the temple sequence. I don't often see them done justice in still photography, let alone cinema. quote:They also don't look like 200 million dollars worth of sets. I mean, I'm saying they do. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:If you've been to HK you'll recognize Soho, Causeway Bay, and the Montane Mansion at least. And they aren't super touched up, aside from the holograms? quote:Jesus, that's asinine. Perhaps you could pick a non touched up shot of Hong Kong? I haven't been, so I can't pick them out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I'd rather discuss a specific shot than a vague 'the conensus is that every shot is gorgeous' because I distinctly remember laughing very hard at the first version of her uncloaking. The current version isn't a lot better, but it is better. So then take some shots and explain your complaints against the aesthetic (beyond not liking unfinished CG). You're the outlier and I'm happy to respect that it doesn't fit your tastes. I'm guessing that you're just not into the hyper-real look. But if you want to put tastes on trial then, please, take the initiative. quote:Perhaps you could pick a non touched up shot of Hong Kong? I haven't been, so I can't pick them out. As I said, the street-level work is untouched save for holograms. The cityscapes plates have some additional alterations to mask landmarks. They did add some elevated highways to the rooftop shots. There are no flooded districts in Hong Kong, so that location is heavily composited. There aren't any examples without the holograms, as it's a visual signature of the film. Hopefully, you don't think their presence invalidates the use of the location.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Or "anime adaptations are bad for the box office" (which will probably unfortunately derail the Alita movie and thankfully the Akira remake) and not "Never give Rupert Sanders a chance ever again". It will be interesting to see if people care as much with Battle Angel, isn't already very far along now or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
This is my favorite phase in these movie threads: Pre-release hyperbolic arguments over speculation. Mmmm, like sweet ambrosia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:It will be interesting to see if people care as much with Battle Angel, isn't already very far along now or something? The big rule about any film project is that if they haven't started shooting, then it's still in development hell. They might have cast Battle Angel, but unless Rodriguez has started filming principal photography, then that project still has a chance to go stillborn. poo poo, there's plenty of films that have made that hurdle but it wasn't a guarantee, like Terry Gilliam's aborted "Man From La Mancha" film or the Wachowskis' "100 years in Iraq" movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:The big rule about any film project is that if they haven't started shooting, then it's still in development hell. They might have cast Battle Angel, but unless Rodriguez has started filming principal photography, then that project still has a chance to go stillborn. poo poo, there's plenty of films that have made that hurdle but it wasn't a guarantee, like Terry Gilliam's aborted "Man From La Mancha" film or the Wachowskis' "100 years in Iraq" movie. It's being made with the same process as Avatar, they actually finished shooting last month and are doing nothing but CG stuff this year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Yeah, Battle Angel is in the... god it's weird to call it post-production with this kind of film-making. The animation production phase? We're gonna need new terminology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
post filming?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
I still don't get how Lucy made so much money. I haven't seen it and I know people here like it ironically or semi ironically, but I pride myself on having extremely unrefined taste and it just looked lame to me. What about it pulled in Joe Sixpack or his East Asian equivalent?
porfiria fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:They could of called it Lady Robo Cop. That movie was already made, buddy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgE_1c1ZDEE
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
I'm surprised this is coming out on Friday. Shouldn't early reviews have started coming in today?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:Yeah, Battle Angel is in the... god it's weird to call it post-production with this kind of film-making. The animation production phase? We're gonna need new terminology. Animation makes sense to me honestly. I remember some interviews in the earliest days before Avatar entered production and James Cameron was still talking about doing Alita with the tech that would end up making Avatar. He described it and then Avatar as an animated movie with live actors in it. He'd always call them animated films first and foremost. porfiria posted:I still don't get how Lucy made so much money. I haven't seen it and I know people here like it ironically or semi ironically, but I pride myself on having extremely unrefined taste and it just looked lame to me. What about it pulled in Joe Sixpack or his East Asian equivalent? I haven't seen the movie so I can't speak to how "big" it is or whatever, but it looks like the budget for it was $40 million. So I think it crossed the line into just people turning out for Scarlett Johannson in an action flick being enough to make it super profitable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:The days of Wong Kar-Wai's gorilla shoots are pretty far behind us now. You can still shoot on the mainland affordably, but that has a very different look from the island. now I want a Wong Kar-Wai Kong movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Squinty posted:I'm surprised this is coming out on Friday. Shouldn't early reviews have started coming in today? I was thinking the same thing. There's had to have been sneak previews and the like already. Rotten Tomatoes has nothing so far, and they'd already have Boss Baby and this week's releases already coming in. I mean, they did screen this for critics already, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:now I want a Wong Kar-Wai Kong movie. Kong Kar-Wai's Chungkong Express.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I was thinking the same thing. There's had to have been sneak previews and the like already. Rotten Tomatoes has nothing so far, and they'd already have Boss Baby and this week's releases already coming in. I mean, they did screen this for critics already, right? If you can read Japanese, it's already premiered and has local reviews. It comes out on Wednesday in Korea, so I'll post my thoughts then. The cast and crew were here for publicity rounds and screenings as well. There were even fan screenings of select IMAX scenes at events across Asia. The domestic US press run is oddly quiet though... not sure if they're just dodging interaction because the whitewashing is such a hot topic in the US or what. Might be better for them to control the tone of what's printed as much as possible for as long as possible, to avoid raising awareness of the controversy? Edit: Okay, the film has actually has been screened for western critics. The embargo will lift Wednesday at midnight, UK time. Also, regarding budget: Although the pitch was for 200m, the final budget wound up being 130m. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Did this film REALLY cost $200 MILLION to make? Well Scarlett better pull off this poo poo good. Also I doubt they had merchandise planned, all they have are a funko vinyl and some expensive collectibles. The ScarJo one looks...okay? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
Depends on how good quality control is; those things have a habit of looking fairly different from model to model. I'm not entirely sure who would want that particular model, though. Maybe with a cybertrenchcoat or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Wiki has a list of films costing adjusted and unadjusted $200M or more, and man are there some pretty unremarkable films in there. I'm not really surprised Ghost in the Shell hit that amount of spending.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Wiki has a list of films costing adjusted and unadjusted $200M or more, and man are there some pretty unremarkable films in there. I'm not really surprised Ghost in the Shell hit that amount of spending.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
This is not the same for GITS, looking back at similar comic book films like Suicide Squad and Avengers: Age of Ultron. they had huge budgets (Suicide Squad cost $175M and AoU cost $280M), but they had multiple big stars to work with and were recognisable brands (because they're Marvel/DC related), hence they were big selling points and were able to make their money back and break even. GITS on the other hand is going to be trickier to pull off, the story and series in general hasn't really appealed to the western masses other than the 1995 movie, anyone else who bothered to stick around also watched SAC, Innocence, Arise, etc. so they're most likely going to watch this. The film's only big selling point is ScarJo, so I'm guessing anyone who wanted Black Widow to do more or less the same*, but with cool cyborg powers in Neo Tokyo, will go ahead and check this out. They could've at least had some promotional stuff or a small toy line to make up the extra costs. *you could argue she did little to nothing, besides Scarlet Witch was a better superhero Junior Jr. fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
The superhero were also tentpole movies that weren't, no pun intended, standalone. One of their functions is just to carry the torch for the franchise. That said, it's insane that the people behind BvS said the movie would be considered a failure if it didn't pull in at least $800M. This industry is so hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Wiki has a list of films costing adjusted and unadjusted $200M or more, and man are there some pretty unremarkable films in there. I'm not really surprised Ghost in the Shell hit that amount of spending. The final budget was $130m. There was a pitch for $200m, but changes must have been made to bring the cost down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
Just jumping in thread to say I can't wait to see this on Friday
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 00:41
|
|
