|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
roäc
Bree
Dec 30 2010, 8:00pm
Post #1 of 24
(910 views)
Shortcut
|
The two Hobbit films are budgeted at an estimated $300 million. This is more than the three LotR films ($285 million).
Do you have any idea how this amount of money is going to be spent?
There are a couple of new cities and of course the Battle of the five armies, but the Trilogy had great battles, cities, costumes, special effects and so on...
Is it that much more expensive to shoot in 3D?
I'm not complaining, just wondering.
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 30 2010, 8:41pm
Post #2 of 24
(518 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The exchange rate would play a big part.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Right now US$1 will buy NZ$1.295, whereas in 1999/2000 US$1 bought in the range of NZ$1.8-$1.93. The studio's money bought a lot more during LOTR's production than it will now for The Hobbit.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Dec 30 2010, 8:52pm
Post #3 of 24
(514 views)
Shortcut
|
Besides what Ataahua pointed out about exchange rates, production costs for a 3-D movie are much higher. Technically you're making 2 movies, each one from a slightly different angle. And so editing, color-grading, etc. can take twice as long. (That's why some studios tried to get away with 3-D conversions.)
So one can argue 4 Hobbit movies for $300 million is a better deal than 3 LOTR movies for $295 million.
Of course the big secret of why studios love 3-D is that the vast majority of films are pirated by someone taking a camcorder into a screening. That doesn't work if the film is 3-D, thus a lot less money is lost to bootlegs.
******************************************
Message on the back of Legolas' cloak:
"If you can read this the Dwarf has fallen off."
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Dec 30 2010, 8:54pm)
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 30 2010, 9:12pm
Post #4 of 24
(479 views)
Shortcut
|
Of course the big secret of why studios love 3-D is that the vast majority of films are pirated by someone taking a camcorder into a screening. That doesn't work if the film is 3-D, thus a lot less money is lost to bootlegs.
I wonder how long it will take for home-3D video technology to be developed?
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded b*****d with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Kangi Ska
Half-elven
Dec 30 2010, 9:46pm
Post #5 of 24
(447 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The price of Starbuck's Lattes...//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
New Zealand is Middle-earth & today life is good.
At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Dec 30 2010, 10:32pm
Post #6 of 24
(456 views)
Shortcut
|
...the budget for both movies is $400m, some say even $500m.
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 30 2010, 10:43pm
Post #7 of 24
(445 views)
Shortcut
|
seem to vary somewhat between news stories, presumably according to the exchange rates of the countries where the news item is published. It would be helpful to discussion to mention in which country's currency the current figure is being given.
Silverlode
"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you." -On Fairy Stories
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Dec 30 2010, 11:53pm
Post #8 of 24
(423 views)
Shortcut
|
|
|
|
Kristin Thompson
Rohan
Dec 31 2010, 2:18am
Post #9 of 24
(461 views)
Shortcut
|
When the two-part film was greenlit in October, the word was that the budget would approach US$500 million. When MGM was in the course of restructuring, Variety reported that: "With Spyglass Entertainment toppers Roger Birnbaum and Gary Barber in charge, MGM's expected to seek a separate loan of $265 million-$275 million for its share of the back-to-back 'Hobbit' movies. What that includes isn't clear. Maybe prints and advertising as well as the production budget. But It's a lot of money, anyway.
I'm not sure how much 3-D adds to the budget of a film. I've heard $30 million. Assuming that's for a two-hour film, and assuming also that The Hobbit might be two three-hour films, that would add on $90 million. I suspect that the Epic camera will make shooting 3D cheaper, but still, it's no small expense. Let's not forget we've had a decade of inflation, too.
The trilogy actually cost more than $285 million. It's original budget when it was greenlit by New Line (1998) was $275 million. Inevitably that got exceeded a little, but after Fellowship was so successful, New Line was willing to put in more money for pickups and special effects for the second and third parts. (You can watch them getting more expensive-looking.) I've heard a variety of figures for the final budget mentioned, ranging from $300 to $350 million. 3D will add to The Hobbit, plus inflation, plus the fact that New Line will be more confident spending a lot of money up front. There could be other factors, like Peter's salary being higher than it was at the beginning of the trilogy, and no doubt the same for other key talent. I can imagine all sorts of expenses being higher. Landowners demanding more money to rent out their properties for location shooting, knowing how well the trilogy did. We all know that airline tickets are much more expensive now than they were a few years ago. Etc., etc. $250 million for a feature film is still a high budget, but after all, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End cost around $300 million.
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Dec 31 2010, 8:51am
Post #10 of 24
(388 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Wasnt it as much as $550-580 million? //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
roäc
Bree
Dec 31 2010, 12:26pm
Post #11 of 24
(357 views)
Shortcut
|
I hadn't thought of inflation. Higher costs through 3D seem plausible, although I don't think you can speak of 4 films instead of two, as it mainly affects post production, doesn't it?
All sorts of expences being higher because of the success of the trilogy also makes sense.
$250 million for a feature film is still a high budget, but after all, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End cost around $300 million
Can you compare those numbers? I heard shooting in NZ was much cheaper than in the US.
By the way, I found this site with budget records, pretty interesting.
|
|
|
xy
Rohan
Dec 31 2010, 12:34pm
Post #12 of 24
(351 views)
Shortcut
|
2 Hobbit movies, 3D or not, will have a higher budget than the 3 LOTR movies ?
There are a lot less effects needed, less sets to be build (Shire and Rivendell are already built), less armour and weaponry as there are less races in the book, a lot less costumes to be made...3 D can't be that expensive to film, surely ?
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Dec 31 2010, 12:47pm
Post #13 of 24
(342 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Kristin Thompson pretty much answered your question//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Wraith Buster
Gondor
Dec 31 2010, 1:17pm
Post #14 of 24
(331 views)
Shortcut
|
Plus there are a lot more things they can do now with the advancement in technology since LOTR came out. I'm sure they have improved the animation and found more ways to make it look real for a little more cash up front.
I think that maybe part of the reason that LOTR's cost was so low was because they basically re-used everything. All the hero swords did not have to be re-made [*Using Aragorn's emphases from the Path Of the Dead*snirt*] and all that so it was no extra cost. Where they have to make totally new axes for the dwarves. Designs for the weapons cost money too.
One thing that they have going for them now is that LOTR sold BIG so, all the people that probably wouldn't help before [because it would put them out on a limb finantially] are now on board completely.
Bustin' makes me feel good!!
I do believe if our honorable friend continues to scrape the bottom of the barrel for objections he is in danger of getting splinters under his fingernails.
Have you heard nothing of the stubbornness of dwarves and their elf
instigators?
The dark spybot will not avail you, flame of Ubuntu!
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Dec 31 2010, 1:46pm
Post #15 of 24
(363 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The LOTR films certainly werent ultimated in scope...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree with alot of the reasons mentioned but I'd say that the LOTR films probabley didnt always have the level of detail Jackson might have preffered.
Minas Tirith for example was limated to a few locations, thats IMHO part of the reason we got to see less of Pippin exploring the city, building all those streets and grand mansions would have been prohibitively expensive.
I think you could see that the level of work put into the sets sometimes depended on how much they'd be used, Edoras and espeically Meduseld got such an incredable amount of work put into it because it featured in multiple extended scenes.
In The Hobbit with a bigger budget PJ will be free to create that level of detail more often and more extensively.
|
|
|
xy
Rohan
Dec 31 2010, 5:17pm
Post #16 of 24
(297 views)
Shortcut
|
...can a higher salary for PJ and the actors, 3D and the advanced techonology used for special effects (which won't be anywhere near the amount we saw in LOTR) really cover the difference in the budget ?
|
|
|
Estel78
Tol Eressea
Dec 31 2010, 5:40pm
Post #17 of 24
(307 views)
Shortcut
|
|
You forget inflation, which adds quite an amount in a decade...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And i dunno why Hobbit should have a lot less special effects. It won't.
|
|
|
Kristin Thompson
Rohan
Dec 31 2010, 7:02pm
Post #18 of 24
(310 views)
Shortcut
|
The various figures and factors I tossed out in my previous post were guesses, basically. We don't have much to go on for The Hobbit. But the actors who got hired for the trilogy got pretty low salaries, as we know from Sean Astin's autobiography and other sources. You can bet people won't settle for those sums for this new one, since the risk factor is considerably less. Even people who weren't in LOTR can cost more. Martin Freeman was just coming off a very successful TV series when he was in negotiations to play Bilbo. I'll bet his fee is higher than Elijah Wood's was.
Let’s look at some figures from a current high-budget film that is failing big-time. For How Do You Know, the James L. Brook rom-com just out, the stars got $15 million (Witherspoon), $12 mil (Nicholson), $10 mil (Owen Wilson), and $3 mil (Paul Rudd), plus the director got about $10 mil. That's nearly $50 right off the bat. That's partly why a comedy ended up costing $120 million to make. So far in ten days it has made $15 million in the US.(If you want to see it in a theater, don't delay.)
The Hobbit has some high-powered talent working in design and technical areas—multiple Oscar-winners in some cases. In 1998, Weta was a company coming off having done effects for The Frighteners. Now its most recent release is Avatar. The same is true of Park Road Post and the other companies in Miramar.
Plus there is inflation. Since the beginning of 2000, when LOTR was in the early filming period, until November of this year, inflation has been 29.62%, which means that, if LOTR cost something like $330 million, if it were filming now it would cost roughly $427,746,000.Plus there's the fact that the New Zealand dollar has risen against the American one. That could change in favor of the Hollywood studios, but they can't assume that. Plus there are many things that we can't think of, and if we could, we couldn't even guess how much they would cost.
In addition to all these factors, known and unknown, there is the simple fact that people spend more money these days on sequels to big hits because they can.
|
|
|
Maiarmike
Grey Havens
Jan 1 2011, 12:42am
Post #19 of 24
(276 views)
Shortcut
|
I think each film (most likely each 3 hours) will hover around $250 million. From every source I've read, Deadline, etc., the movies are expected to be $500 million in total. This doesn't include marketing most likely, but the sfx budget is going to be massive. Along with all the sets being built, costumes, giant crews, etc. Makes perfect sense Warners and MGM would be willing to fork out the cash, because I assume each film will make over a $1 billion worldwide. Not hard to fathom, since one film (Avatar) made $2.7 billion.
|
|
|
xy
Rohan
Jan 1 2011, 9:09am
Post #20 of 24
(248 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't know...my guess would be that while maybe Freeman might get a bit more for Bilbo than Wood got for Frodo, the actors really being able to ask for more would be the ones portraying Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and Gollum (Saruman if he chooses to return). No way are they appearing for less than what they got paid for LOTR. I also presume Peter Jackson will get paid more.
There is inflation...however, there is also the recession. People may not be willing to pay for the expensive 3D tickets, even with Hollywood banking on sequels and movie series to make money.
That is a lot of money, however I don't think any Hobbit actor can demand the kind of salary Witherspoon or Nicholson or Wilson can.
As for effects, certainly Weta is in the big league re: s. effects. That said, the Hobbit has a lot less going on in terms of that. And a lot of the sets would presumably have been preserved from LOTR - we know PJ kept Bag End, and there's the Shire, Rivendell and Lothlorien...
(This post was edited by xy on Jan 1 2011, 9:11am)
|
|
|
Kristin Thompson
Rohan
Jan 1 2011, 4:39pm
Post #21 of 24
(281 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Part of it is the franchise thing
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The point I've been making is that there are many, many separate factors (location rentals, air travel) that are now more expensive than when LOTR was made. It's not just star salaries going up or any other small number of causes. We can guess at a lot of those causes, but there are others we know nothing about. But when so many different factors are added up, they make a huge rise in costs compared to eleven years ago.
No doubt that huge rise still wouldn't completely account for the steep rise in budget. But, as I said at the end of my previous post, there's the "because they can" factor. If you watch FOTR and ROTK back to back, the rise in the budget between them is dramatically evident (at least to me). It's not just that there are more special effects, though that was a big part of it. FOTR made New Line more willing to dish out more cash (though they naturally did so reluctantly.) Now, with the LOTR behind them, the filmmakers can start out on that more lavish scale. New Line and MGM will want to do everything they can to make The Hobbit live up to the trilogy, perhaps especially because it's perceived as a children's story, and they want to hold onto the broad audience. Plus I think there's now an assumption in Hollywood that in a series, each new film has to top the previous one. I mentioned that Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End cost roughly $300 million. POTC: The Curse of the Black Pearl cost roughly $140 million. Those came out only four years apart, so inflation was considerably less. The Hobbit's costing more for two films than LOTR cost for three doesn't surprise me because that's the way Hollywood franchises tend to work these days.
By the way, the Bag End set that Peter kept is now buried in a hillside in Peter's country estate, serving as his guest-house. I doubt that one will be dug up and re-used. My guess would be that they will build it anew for the film. In 2003, when I was in Wellington doing research for my book, I toured one of the props warehouses and saw one of the flat Hobbit-hole facades. But given that this time they're building Hobbiton to stand as a permanent tourist attraction, I expect the entire thing will have been built from scratch. I'm not sure to what extent the Rivendell and Lorthlorien set elements were preserved. In 2003, I watched the demolition of the last standing set, part of Minas Tirith. It was taken apart with sledge hammers and hauled away to the dump. If there was some thought at the time that the Rivendell and Lothlorien sets might be used for The Hobbit, maybe they were kept, but taking them apart, storing them for over seven years, and re-assembling them would be an expensive job in itself.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 4 2011, 8:20am
Post #23 of 24
(181 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I see alot of potential to for the Hobbit to "one up" LOTR aswell
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Not only do you have several large action set peices in the second film but theres alot of room for exepsnive sets and location work.
Within LOTR I think you definately get the sense that the set work(moreso than the CGI which benefited from the improved post FOTR budget) was sometimes held back by the budget a little. Locations such as Orthanc and Meduseld that saw heavy repeated use had an extra level of detail to them that wasnt always present for sets that got less screentime, I think that for example we'd have seen before of Minas Tirith with a larger budget and a more detailed thown room.
The first Hobbit film espeically shifts around alot and I suspect you'll see somewhere like Beorns house get alot of work put into it even if it gets limated screentime. The dwarven halls under the lonely mountain espeically seem like somewhere that they could really go to town on rather than the CGI/model work of Moria in LOTR.
|
|
|
Gollum2
The Shire
Jan 6 2011, 4:34am
Post #24 of 24
(198 views)
Shortcut
|
Not even Avatar was that much. I don't think the 500M was ever confirmed. Marketing would likely be 150M+ add that and you are looking at a 650M+ budget. BTW the 500M budget is a rumor.
|
|
|
|
|
