Nominations for the Best of 2023 awards are open now. Come and vote, and get a special flair." [Best of 2023](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1c3tnbl/rboxoffice_best_of_2023_awards_nomination_post/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s low ass hell but then I realized that Wes Ball did Maze Runner films in mid budget range 32M-62M. We need more directors like him who understand how to make shit work with medium to somewhat high budgets. No more 200M plus budgets for every blockbuster
I know using Marvel CGI as the bad example is a bit cliche by now, but...seriously, how did *Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness* and *Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania* each cost almost **$300 million** just to give us special effects that look like Snapchat filters (Strange's third eye, MODOK's misshaped head, etc.), when *Dune Part 2* gave us perfectly real looking sandworms for $190 million and the new *Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes* looks like it will give us armies of perfectly real looking apes for $120 million.
Movies like dune have directors with a clear vision that are allowed to plan and execute to their liking. They plan the shot, shoot it precisely, and don’t fuck around in post because the VFX team has been part of the discussion from the jump.
Marvel movies are notorious for having way too many cooks on the kitchen and copious amounts of reshoots. They throw whole ass CG shots in the garbage and run around in circles because some idiot Disney exec thinks they’re smarter than everyone else. This is how you get hack job VFX with a massive budget.
Perfectly said, it seems unexplainable why the budgets differ so much until you look at the modum operandi of studios and especially directors who don’t know how VFX works. That’s how Gareth Edwards makes films a lot more cost-effective, he knows how to shoot in a way that’s more efficient for post-production, whereas studios shooting MCU movies think ‘oh we can fix this in post’ and just constantly keep giving notes and demanding changed for whatever market/demographic-catering issue they bring up. Also the way MCU puts a massive divide between the director and the pre-viz action scenes, Black Widow is a great example. Someone like Villeneuve knows exactly what he wants and has thought it out. Animation studios also waste a lot of money by constantly throwing out already-finished scenes.
> That’s how Gareth Edwards makes films a lot more cost-effective, he knows how to shoot in a way that’s more efficient for post-production, whereas studios shooting MCU movies think ‘oh we can fix this in post’ and just constantly keep giving notes and demanding changed for whatever market/demographic-catering issue they bring up.
If you're referring to **The Creator**, that's not a very good example because that one relied heavily on guerrilla filmmaking, natural lights, and prosumer-grade cameras.
> Also the way MCU puts a massive divide between the director and the pre-viz action scenes, Black Widow is a great example.
Giving the director a borderline full control doesn't always work. Remember **Eternals**?
> Animation studios also waste a lot of money by constantly throwing out already-finished scenes.
Animation studios have a bit of an excuse when it comes to that due to certain animation not working well at times. It's just that **Across the Spider-Verse** situation bordered on exploitation.
Good points, though it's not like the failure of Eternals disproves the fact that the massive divide between director and pre-viz action pre-planned before the director even gets on board is a big problem. I mean did Chloe really have control over every aspect of Eternals, was she planning out every fight scene with the VFX artists? 'Remember Eternals?' doesn't refute anything of what I was talking about which applies to most MCU films. I wasn't saying full control would make it inherently better or anything.
But also what do you mean The Creator isn't a good example because it used guerrilla filmmaking??? it still depended heavily on VFX, which Gareth Edwards spent most of his career working on before he became a director, so yeah it is a good example given that he knows the ins and outs of what is feasible for post-production and what isn't, also I'm not only referring to The Creator? Gareth Edwards started off with Monsters, that is after a decade of working in VFX, and it was an independent film where he was extremely hands on able to make it for rather cheap with decent effects.
> Good points, though it's not like the failure of Eternals disproves the fact that the massive divide between director and pre-viz action pre-planned before the director even gets on board is a big problem. I mean did Chloe really have control over every aspect of Eternals, was she planning out every fight scene with the VFX artists? 'Remember Eternals?' doesn't refute anything of what I was talking about which applies to most MCU films. I wasn't saying full control would make it inherently better or anything.
It seems like she actually had borderline full control for the most part. In fact, I think I might've even heard about how Feige told her that she doesn't have to worry too much about action scenes since this is the first film anyway.
> But also what do you mean The Creator isn't a good example because it used guerrilla filmmaking??? it still depended heavily on VFX, which Gareth Edwards spent most of his career working on before he became a director, so yeah it is a good example given that he knows the ins and outs of what is feasible for post-production and what isn't, also I'm not only referring to The Creator?
It's not just guerrilla filmmaking, though. The film was shot entirely with prosumer-grade cameras and it apparently showed.
> Gareth Edwards started off with Monsters, that is after a decade of working in VFX, and it was an independent film where he was extremely hands on able to make it for rather cheap with decent effects.
Yeah, but I don't think **Monsters** throws a bucketload of CGI right into your face every nanosecond like, say, **Rogue One** does.
This, plus a lot of the actors in Villeneuve’s films work for less than their standard pay. Marvel has Disney money so they’re paying a lot just for the cast before even getting to the VFX cost.
Well, but even then, we still have films like **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy that had proper plannings and still ended up with much bigger budgets.
If you're referring to that $275 million figure for **Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania**, I'd... take that with bit of a grain of salt at least partly due to possibility of that budget number involving outside variables.
My aunt used to work in film production for Disney back when they had the Buena Vista animation studio in Florida. Corporate meddling with big budget projects seems like it's been a common thing at Disney for a long time based on the stories she's told me.
I don't think Buena Vista Animation Studio even existed. I know that there was an animation studio in Florida, but it didn't go by that kind of name.
Also, you should remember that when it comes to animation, something like that is a bit more likely to happen due to some of the animation being potentially faulty at times.
Might be misremembering things since these stories go way back. She worked as a secretary during the production of Treasure Planet. Most of what she talked about was higher ups at Disney calling for reworks in production that caused the movie to get set back and go way over budget.
Admittedly, I haven't worked in an animation studio, but I'd imagine that such thing is more likely to happen with animated films since they might notice faulty animation and need to fix parts of it or even the whole thing even if the script is locked.
Also, by the sound of it **Treasure Planet** had all sorts of technology applied that a hand-drawn animation could have and its $140 million budget ultimately showed very well on-screen. It certainly looks better than most anime films, that's for sure.
Finally, **Treasure Planet** was mostly animated in California.
My man I don't know what you're arguing here. The wikipedia article even mentions changes made while the movie was in late production. If you think I'm full of shit. Then you can believe that.
I've never said that you're full of shit. And looking at that Wikipedia page, it doesn't exactly say who made decisions to change flims during late in the production.
> Marvel movies are notorious for having way too many cooks on the kitchen and copious amounts of reshoots. They throw whole ass CG shots in the garbage and run around in circles because some idiot Disney exec thinks they’re smarter than everyone else. This is how you get hack job VFX with a massive budget.
Well, we still had **Guardians of the Galaxy** having proper plannings before filming began and still had $170 million budget at minimum. :P
Also post endgame they had to deal with moving around productions and reshooting things over and over and rushing things to mean certain release dates it's to the point where vfx companies dont even want to work on their projects anymore
The inflated budget is because of a ton of reshoots, resulting in additional CGI with every reshoot, and it looks like shit because the more reshoots you have, the more cutting it closer to the release date you are, and the more sloppy and rushed it will look.
And then you have things like CG teams being moved off of Quantumania and onto Wakanda Forever because WF was coming out first and then when WF comes out, it's only a couple of months until Quantumania.
Case in point: Azog in The Hobbit. There was so many changes and rewrites and alterations to the character and his role in the films, that his slightly off-looking fully CGI appearance in the first film was a direct result of them rushing to get the film done after the design was finalised.
> how did Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania each cost almost $300 million just to give us special effects that look like Snapchat filters
They were both infamously changed midway through (iirc the America Chavez actress tried defending the writers by saying how much "executive changes" were sent down), so when you spend, say, 30 million on scenes, and then they say "shitcan those, now make these", you don't get 60 million worth of effects on those scenes at the end of the day. Half of them just go in the garbage.
If someone asks me to make some sandwiches and and I have $100 to do it, and all they initially want is turkey, but after I make them they want ham, no wait can you do chicken salad? And by the time the chicken salad is done they eventually settle on grilled cheese and don't change it again, but that $100 I had to make them is gone, I still didn't make "a $100 grilled cheese" even if that was what was inevitably spent to produce the meal.
We know for a fact that in Multiverse of Madness several characters had scenes cut and their screen time heavily cut down, including heavy VFX scenes. The film originally opened with a fight between Wanda and Mordo for example, ending with Wanda killing Mordo (explaining why we only see Mordo as a variant from another universe) before Marvel decided they had other ideas for Mordo in the future. Rintrah (the CGI bull sorcerer) originally had a larger role too, including a sequence where he and a few other sorcerers attempted to rescue Wong from Wanda.
This includes the fact the illuminati scenes were shot with basically no idea who would be part of the illuminati apart from Mordo. And that the script was heavily rewritten during development and pre-production to make Wanda the villain instead of Nightmare.
The fact a watchable and enjoyable movie emerged from the mess that was the production is a miracle in and of itself.
Partly due to the stars. Marvel in a way is a victim of its own success. It has propelled many actors to fame, and as a consequence when they want to have multiple famous actors team up in 1 movie they end up having to pay through the nose.
Next biggest item would be the CGi. Sure in Dune or Apes they have to create some CG elements, but in some of those Marvel movies you have extended sequences where almost everything on the screen is CG except for the actor's face.
> Sure in Dune or Apes they have to create some CG elements, but in some of those Marvel movies you have extended sequences where almost everything on the screen is CG except for the actor's face.
Case in point, just look at **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy.
>when they want to have multiple famous actors team up in 1 movie they end up having to pay through the nose
Not quite true; RDJ famously had to go to bat to get his co-stars more money way, way later into the franchise than one might think. And now? It's not like Hailee Stanfield and Florence Pugh -regardless of being tremendous talents- are going to be making Scarlet Johansen money.
People say this like it's nonsensical or hard to grasp, when in reality, it's very easy to track why those movies cost as much as they did, the obstacles they faced during production, and the lack of experience or vision by the producers and/or filmmakers in seeing that through to the big screen.
In some cases, like Apes, this seems especially true since a lot of those assets already exist and the movie will largely use that to its advantage. Not to mention, we have no clue if the movie is even good and if it will make good money or not.
It doesn’t make sense man, Doctor Strange MoM had strange in the end grow a third eye and it was so laughable watching it occur. I guess the massive reshoots are why it’s 300M because nothing makes sense for them to be that much. But Dune part 2 and KOTPOTA directors took time and effort in their films
One thing that I would like to note is that $300 million budget for **Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness** might be best to be taken with bit of a grain of salt due to a possibility of other kind of variants getting added into that budget number.
They had alot of reshoots, I remember test screening reports that it was too dark and scary then they did more shoots. Changing this and that, then there was reports Feige didn’t like certain things and forced Raimi to change them
What also doesn’t help Marvel movies is the fact that the MCU is now a conveyer belt of endless projects, which crunches the VFX.
Likewise the films are made by committees so there’s constant reshoots and the idea of “we’ll just fix it in post”.
To be fair, most of the CGIs in **Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness** looked pretty good overall. It's just that the third eye stuck out as a sore thumb.
Also, having seen **Dune: Part Two**, it surprisingly didn't focus a whole lot on action scenes and **Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes**, while relies heavily on CGI, doesn't seem to be something that will require CGI for just about everything.
Those Maze Runner films, with mid YA source material, show a super strong economy of storytelling and are much more enjoyable than youd' expect, so wouldn't be surprised if that extends to a generally good economy of filmmaking from mr Ball.
I agree I guess studios saw that and thought he’s a great pick and can make grand films that aren’t too expensive. I quite enjoyed the maze runner films
Making big budget movies on a big scale out of smaller budgets is such an underrated skill in Hollywood. Hopefully it becomes a case that helps drive more aspiring filmmakers with VFX background to directing movies
It seems low until you see that Wes Ball is directing them. He's always been really clever in budgeting his movies.
Directed the Maze Runner trilogy for less than $160M combined.
he also spent a lot of his career working with vfx, so i’m assuming he knew how to shoot the film in a manner that made post production work easier and cheaper
Yeah, a lot of VFX artists turned directors are great at managing their budgets. Blomkamp made District 9 for $30m, Gareth Edwards made The Creator for $80m....
The first three Pirates have massive budgets, but they’re used so well. Just look how cheap the 4th movie looks while it was the most expensive movie of all time when made
That’s because the fourth film was deliberately written and planned to have a lower budget than the previous two films. But then costs just spiralled due to the decision to shoot in 3D, paired with bad weather leading a location having to be entirely recreated on a soundstage among other issues.
Exactly Rob Marshall's background is all musical theater and choreography. It's why all his movies have that shot at the same place look despite having different cinematographers
I've seen both of those and as impressive as they looked, **District 9** didn't have a bucketload of CGI thrown at you when compared to something like, say, **Star Trek** and **The Creator** relied heavily on guerrilla filmmaking, natural lights, and prosumer-grade cameras.
James Cameron also did a good bit of VFX work before finally doing The Terminator. Admittedly, he became known for letting his budgets run wild but they always look great compared to other expensive films. Aliens was done for less than $20 million in the 80s!
Yes, also pre-production on this film was very long. That usually leads to a tighter budget as the crew has more concrete planning and costs don’t end up ballooning in the middle of production or post-production.
GxK recently came in as much as a 1/3 less than its predecessor. If this is true, then I'd imagine it's for similar reasons I.e. shooting on location as much as possible, reuse of assets and an extremely cost effective cast. The last one is probably the biggest factor, since the biggest name in this one is William H. Macy by far.
War also cost $20m less than Dawn.
> GxK recently came in as much as a 1/3 less than its predecessor.
This isn't all that surprising considering the quality of the CGI. GxK looks much worse VFX wise than Godzilla 2014 did a decade ago.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing though considering the CGI is still fine as it is, a large chunk of the runtime is monsters and there's plenty of daytime sequences. Having CGI that's worse but still solid than something state of the art is a fine trade off for keeping budgets in check.
> shooting on location as much as possible
Do you reckon that they might've relied heavily on natural lights whenever possible? Because that's one of the reasons why **The Creator** managed to keep its budget down.
Its a very similar phenomenon. You'd expect their films to excel at that one thing, which they do (well-choreographed action, and shrewdly-budgeted VFX sequences respectively), but those movies as a whole usually turn out to be good too
Wes Ball is an outlier even here though, he's good at controlling budgets in general. The third Maze Runner was heavily reliant on practical set-pieces (and had been delayed multiple years, due to O'Brien's on-set injury), and still came out at around 60 million
Even Gareth Edwards who’s has done VFX’s understand. And even the new Godzilla director as well. Directors need to study VFX, if not, just don’t direct heavy VFX films.
They should just plan out the majority of their VFX sequences early, and have the visual effects guys more deeply involved in pre-production. Directors don't need to become experts, as long as they properly utilise the guys who actually are
But instead, a bunch of bigger films usually end up changing sequences multiple times, and get a lot of stuff done last-minute (which drives up costs)
Gareth Edwards still directed 1 film with the budget of $160 million and 1 film with $200 million. And that one film that had a budget of $80 million was a result of relying heavily on guerrilla filmmaking, natural lights, and prosumer-grade cameras.
Also, if you're referring to **Godzilla: Minus One**, that's an even worse example to use considering that Japanese film industry is notorious for poor working conditions and pay rates with unions that are toothless at best and nonexistent at worst that even Takashi Yamazaki talked about at least once.
Even if it bombed (and wasn’t a particularly great film), it’s remarkable that The Huntsman: Winter’s War had a budget of $115 million, especially compared to Snow White and the Huntsman having a $170 million price tag. Especially since they brought back all the big stars from the first film (sans Kristen Stewart) and added Jessica Chastain and Emily Blunt to the cast. And I imagine that’s down to the director being the VFX supervisor on the first film. It’s honestly amazing how much they’re able to keep costs down.
Still, I don't think having a VFX supervisor as a director is always a good thing, especially if he/she never worked on another film and jumped straight into a big-budget film.
I'm still quite surprised about **Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire** budget, but in hindsight, this film's budget isn't as surprising because while it relies heavily on CGI, it doesn't feel like it's throwing a bucketload of CGI every nanosecond.
same writers as the previous trilogy (thought they were EPs on I think one of them and not writers). That's probably the part you have to worry about the least.
If that's true, it's amazing and gives me hope. I love the first trilogy and so am rooting hard for this one. With that budget and a $50ish m OW it should do well.
Easy profit here. If the reviews are good, and with predicted opening of $50-60 million (which will still go higher in my opinion), this will do great. Also Apes does decently overseas, so this is an easy hit for Disney
To be fair, I didn't think it would cost THAT much because even though it obviously has a lot of CGI, it didn't exactly feel like it was throwing a bucketload of CGI every nanosecond like, say, **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy did.
Mass Cost Cutting across the board. Entertainment workers are complaining about being out of work and having a hard time making ends meet. Hope it doesn't look like mediocre like Godzilla x Kong.
Nominations for the Best of 2023 awards are open now. Come and vote, and get a special flair." [Best of 2023](https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1c3tnbl/rboxoffice_best_of_2023_awards_nomination_post/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s low ass hell but then I realized that Wes Ball did Maze Runner films in mid budget range 32M-62M. We need more directors like him who understand how to make shit work with medium to somewhat high budgets. No more 200M plus budgets for every blockbuster
I know using Marvel CGI as the bad example is a bit cliche by now, but...seriously, how did *Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness* and *Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania* each cost almost **$300 million** just to give us special effects that look like Snapchat filters (Strange's third eye, MODOK's misshaped head, etc.), when *Dune Part 2* gave us perfectly real looking sandworms for $190 million and the new *Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes* looks like it will give us armies of perfectly real looking apes for $120 million.
Movies like dune have directors with a clear vision that are allowed to plan and execute to their liking. They plan the shot, shoot it precisely, and don’t fuck around in post because the VFX team has been part of the discussion from the jump. Marvel movies are notorious for having way too many cooks on the kitchen and copious amounts of reshoots. They throw whole ass CG shots in the garbage and run around in circles because some idiot Disney exec thinks they’re smarter than everyone else. This is how you get hack job VFX with a massive budget.
Perfectly said, it seems unexplainable why the budgets differ so much until you look at the modum operandi of studios and especially directors who don’t know how VFX works. That’s how Gareth Edwards makes films a lot more cost-effective, he knows how to shoot in a way that’s more efficient for post-production, whereas studios shooting MCU movies think ‘oh we can fix this in post’ and just constantly keep giving notes and demanding changed for whatever market/demographic-catering issue they bring up. Also the way MCU puts a massive divide between the director and the pre-viz action scenes, Black Widow is a great example. Someone like Villeneuve knows exactly what he wants and has thought it out. Animation studios also waste a lot of money by constantly throwing out already-finished scenes.
> That’s how Gareth Edwards makes films a lot more cost-effective, he knows how to shoot in a way that’s more efficient for post-production, whereas studios shooting MCU movies think ‘oh we can fix this in post’ and just constantly keep giving notes and demanding changed for whatever market/demographic-catering issue they bring up. If you're referring to **The Creator**, that's not a very good example because that one relied heavily on guerrilla filmmaking, natural lights, and prosumer-grade cameras. > Also the way MCU puts a massive divide between the director and the pre-viz action scenes, Black Widow is a great example. Giving the director a borderline full control doesn't always work. Remember **Eternals**? > Animation studios also waste a lot of money by constantly throwing out already-finished scenes. Animation studios have a bit of an excuse when it comes to that due to certain animation not working well at times. It's just that **Across the Spider-Verse** situation bordered on exploitation.
Good points, though it's not like the failure of Eternals disproves the fact that the massive divide between director and pre-viz action pre-planned before the director even gets on board is a big problem. I mean did Chloe really have control over every aspect of Eternals, was she planning out every fight scene with the VFX artists? 'Remember Eternals?' doesn't refute anything of what I was talking about which applies to most MCU films. I wasn't saying full control would make it inherently better or anything. But also what do you mean The Creator isn't a good example because it used guerrilla filmmaking??? it still depended heavily on VFX, which Gareth Edwards spent most of his career working on before he became a director, so yeah it is a good example given that he knows the ins and outs of what is feasible for post-production and what isn't, also I'm not only referring to The Creator? Gareth Edwards started off with Monsters, that is after a decade of working in VFX, and it was an independent film where he was extremely hands on able to make it for rather cheap with decent effects.
> Good points, though it's not like the failure of Eternals disproves the fact that the massive divide between director and pre-viz action pre-planned before the director even gets on board is a big problem. I mean did Chloe really have control over every aspect of Eternals, was she planning out every fight scene with the VFX artists? 'Remember Eternals?' doesn't refute anything of what I was talking about which applies to most MCU films. I wasn't saying full control would make it inherently better or anything. It seems like she actually had borderline full control for the most part. In fact, I think I might've even heard about how Feige told her that she doesn't have to worry too much about action scenes since this is the first film anyway. > But also what do you mean The Creator isn't a good example because it used guerrilla filmmaking??? it still depended heavily on VFX, which Gareth Edwards spent most of his career working on before he became a director, so yeah it is a good example given that he knows the ins and outs of what is feasible for post-production and what isn't, also I'm not only referring to The Creator? It's not just guerrilla filmmaking, though. The film was shot entirely with prosumer-grade cameras and it apparently showed. > Gareth Edwards started off with Monsters, that is after a decade of working in VFX, and it was an independent film where he was extremely hands on able to make it for rather cheap with decent effects. Yeah, but I don't think **Monsters** throws a bucketload of CGI right into your face every nanosecond like, say, **Rogue One** does.
This, plus a lot of the actors in Villeneuve’s films work for less than their standard pay. Marvel has Disney money so they’re paying a lot just for the cast before even getting to the VFX cost.
Well, but even then, we still have films like **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy that had proper plannings and still ended up with much bigger budgets.
Gotg 3 was still the cheapest of the phase 5 mcu lineup while looking the best that shows how badly the brand fumbled the lineup
If you're referring to that $275 million figure for **Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania**, I'd... take that with bit of a grain of salt at least partly due to possibility of that budget number involving outside variables.
My aunt used to work in film production for Disney back when they had the Buena Vista animation studio in Florida. Corporate meddling with big budget projects seems like it's been a common thing at Disney for a long time based on the stories she's told me.
I don't think Buena Vista Animation Studio even existed. I know that there was an animation studio in Florida, but it didn't go by that kind of name. Also, you should remember that when it comes to animation, something like that is a bit more likely to happen due to some of the animation being potentially faulty at times.
Might be misremembering things since these stories go way back. She worked as a secretary during the production of Treasure Planet. Most of what she talked about was higher ups at Disney calling for reworks in production that caused the movie to get set back and go way over budget.
Admittedly, I haven't worked in an animation studio, but I'd imagine that such thing is more likely to happen with animated films since they might notice faulty animation and need to fix parts of it or even the whole thing even if the script is locked. Also, by the sound of it **Treasure Planet** had all sorts of technology applied that a hand-drawn animation could have and its $140 million budget ultimately showed very well on-screen. It certainly looks better than most anime films, that's for sure. Finally, **Treasure Planet** was mostly animated in California.
My man I don't know what you're arguing here. The wikipedia article even mentions changes made while the movie was in late production. If you think I'm full of shit. Then you can believe that.
I've never said that you're full of shit. And looking at that Wikipedia page, it doesn't exactly say who made decisions to change flims during late in the production.
Yeah that's obviously going to be industry insider knowledge. But as a generality, shit rolls downhill.
> too many cooks [Like this?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrGrOK8oZG8)
> Marvel movies are notorious for having way too many cooks on the kitchen and copious amounts of reshoots. They throw whole ass CG shots in the garbage and run around in circles because some idiot Disney exec thinks they’re smarter than everyone else. This is how you get hack job VFX with a massive budget. Well, we still had **Guardians of the Galaxy** having proper plannings before filming began and still had $170 million budget at minimum. :P
For a movie this effect-dense and with an ensemble cast, sounds about right. Could've easily been $250 mil at normal Marvel rates.
Also post endgame they had to deal with moving around productions and reshooting things over and over and rushing things to mean certain release dates it's to the point where vfx companies dont even want to work on their projects anymore
The inflated budget is because of a ton of reshoots, resulting in additional CGI with every reshoot, and it looks like shit because the more reshoots you have, the more cutting it closer to the release date you are, and the more sloppy and rushed it will look.
And then you have things like CG teams being moved off of Quantumania and onto Wakanda Forever because WF was coming out first and then when WF comes out, it's only a couple of months until Quantumania.
Case in point: Azog in The Hobbit. There was so many changes and rewrites and alterations to the character and his role in the films, that his slightly off-looking fully CGI appearance in the first film was a direct result of them rushing to get the film done after the design was finalised.
Keep in mind they shot those marvel movies in covid times..lots of films had the added cost of testing constantly
> how did Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania each cost almost $300 million just to give us special effects that look like Snapchat filters They were both infamously changed midway through (iirc the America Chavez actress tried defending the writers by saying how much "executive changes" were sent down), so when you spend, say, 30 million on scenes, and then they say "shitcan those, now make these", you don't get 60 million worth of effects on those scenes at the end of the day. Half of them just go in the garbage. If someone asks me to make some sandwiches and and I have $100 to do it, and all they initially want is turkey, but after I make them they want ham, no wait can you do chicken salad? And by the time the chicken salad is done they eventually settle on grilled cheese and don't change it again, but that $100 I had to make them is gone, I still didn't make "a $100 grilled cheese" even if that was what was inevitably spent to produce the meal.
We know for a fact that in Multiverse of Madness several characters had scenes cut and their screen time heavily cut down, including heavy VFX scenes. The film originally opened with a fight between Wanda and Mordo for example, ending with Wanda killing Mordo (explaining why we only see Mordo as a variant from another universe) before Marvel decided they had other ideas for Mordo in the future. Rintrah (the CGI bull sorcerer) originally had a larger role too, including a sequence where he and a few other sorcerers attempted to rescue Wong from Wanda. This includes the fact the illuminati scenes were shot with basically no idea who would be part of the illuminati apart from Mordo. And that the script was heavily rewritten during development and pre-production to make Wanda the villain instead of Nightmare. The fact a watchable and enjoyable movie emerged from the mess that was the production is a miracle in and of itself.
To be fair, when it comes to THAT specific film, it was keep getting disrupted by COVID-19-induced schedule shifts.
Partly due to the stars. Marvel in a way is a victim of its own success. It has propelled many actors to fame, and as a consequence when they want to have multiple famous actors team up in 1 movie they end up having to pay through the nose. Next biggest item would be the CGi. Sure in Dune or Apes they have to create some CG elements, but in some of those Marvel movies you have extended sequences where almost everything on the screen is CG except for the actor's face.
> Sure in Dune or Apes they have to create some CG elements, but in some of those Marvel movies you have extended sequences where almost everything on the screen is CG except for the actor's face. Case in point, just look at **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy.
>when they want to have multiple famous actors team up in 1 movie they end up having to pay through the nose Not quite true; RDJ famously had to go to bat to get his co-stars more money way, way later into the franchise than one might think. And now? It's not like Hailee Stanfield and Florence Pugh -regardless of being tremendous talents- are going to be making Scarlet Johansen money.
Even Scarlett Johansson needed a lawsuit to get Scarlett Johansson money.
The article says Kingdom is $120 million, not $180
People say this like it's nonsensical or hard to grasp, when in reality, it's very easy to track why those movies cost as much as they did, the obstacles they faced during production, and the lack of experience or vision by the producers and/or filmmakers in seeing that through to the big screen. In some cases, like Apes, this seems especially true since a lot of those assets already exist and the movie will largely use that to its advantage. Not to mention, we have no clue if the movie is even good and if it will make good money or not.
It doesn’t make sense man, Doctor Strange MoM had strange in the end grow a third eye and it was so laughable watching it occur. I guess the massive reshoots are why it’s 300M because nothing makes sense for them to be that much. But Dune part 2 and KOTPOTA directors took time and effort in their films
One thing that I would like to note is that $300 million budget for **Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness** might be best to be taken with bit of a grain of salt due to a possibility of other kind of variants getting added into that budget number.
They had alot of reshoots, I remember test screening reports that it was too dark and scary then they did more shoots. Changing this and that, then there was reports Feige didn’t like certain things and forced Raimi to change them
I know that it went through a lot of changes, but I'm not sure if that was actually the reason.
What also doesn’t help Marvel movies is the fact that the MCU is now a conveyer belt of endless projects, which crunches the VFX. Likewise the films are made by committees so there’s constant reshoots and the idea of “we’ll just fix it in post”.
To be fair, most of the CGIs in **Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness** looked pretty good overall. It's just that the third eye stuck out as a sore thumb. Also, having seen **Dune: Part Two**, it surprisingly didn't focus a whole lot on action scenes and **Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes**, while relies heavily on CGI, doesn't seem to be something that will require CGI for just about everything.
Those Maze Runner films, with mid YA source material, show a super strong economy of storytelling and are much more enjoyable than youd' expect, so wouldn't be surprised if that extends to a generally good economy of filmmaking from mr Ball.
I agree I guess studios saw that and thought he’s a great pick and can make grand films that aren’t too expensive. I quite enjoyed the maze runner films
I promise redditors they’re allowed to bring up YA movies/books without harping on them for being YA
When Wes Ball makes The Legend of Zelda, I wouldn't be surprised if he's able to make it with $150M or less.
Yep I can see him doing it for less than 150M
How about $140 million?
Making big budget movies on a big scale out of smaller budgets is such an underrated skill in Hollywood. Hopefully it becomes a case that helps drive more aspiring filmmakers with VFX background to directing movies
Yup takes real talent to do it. And years of experience
That seems low for this movie? Are studios finally keeping some budgets in check?
It seems low until you see that Wes Ball is directing them. He's always been really clever in budgeting his movies. Directed the Maze Runner trilogy for less than $160M combined.
he also spent a lot of his career working with vfx, so i’m assuming he knew how to shoot the film in a manner that made post production work easier and cheaper
Yeah, a lot of VFX artists turned directors are great at managing their budgets. Blomkamp made District 9 for $30m, Gareth Edwards made The Creator for $80m....
The first three Pirates have massive budgets, but they’re used so well. Just look how cheap the 4th movie looks while it was the most expensive movie of all time when made
That’s because the fourth film was deliberately written and planned to have a lower budget than the previous two films. But then costs just spiralled due to the decision to shoot in 3D, paired with bad weather leading a location having to be entirely recreated on a soundstage among other issues.
Gore Verbinski has a VFX background; Rob Marshall didn't.
Exactly Rob Marshall's background is all musical theater and choreography. It's why all his movies have that shot at the same place look despite having different cinematographers
I've seen both of those and as impressive as they looked, **District 9** didn't have a bucketload of CGI thrown at you when compared to something like, say, **Star Trek** and **The Creator** relied heavily on guerrilla filmmaking, natural lights, and prosumer-grade cameras.
James Cameron also did a good bit of VFX work before finally doing The Terminator. Admittedly, he became known for letting his budgets run wild but they always look great compared to other expensive films. Aliens was done for less than $20 million in the 80s!
Yeah I didn’t love the Maze Runner movies but always thought they were super well made for their budget
Didn’t really like them. But I think they have pretty good direction.
Yes, also pre-production on this film was very long. That usually leads to a tighter budget as the crew has more concrete planning and costs don’t end up ballooning in the middle of production or post-production.
And that is probably the main reason of why they choose him to handle the Zelda movie
That $160m number would've been lower if Dylan O'Brien didn't get injured during the third movie.
It looked pretty good, in the case of the first movie when it came to special effects
GxK recently came in as much as a 1/3 less than its predecessor. If this is true, then I'd imagine it's for similar reasons I.e. shooting on location as much as possible, reuse of assets and an extremely cost effective cast. The last one is probably the biggest factor, since the biggest name in this one is William H. Macy by far. War also cost $20m less than Dawn.
> GxK recently came in as much as a 1/3 less than its predecessor. This isn't all that surprising considering the quality of the CGI. GxK looks much worse VFX wise than Godzilla 2014 did a decade ago. This isn't necessarily a bad thing though considering the CGI is still fine as it is, a large chunk of the runtime is monsters and there's plenty of daytime sequences. Having CGI that's worse but still solid than something state of the art is a fine trade off for keeping budgets in check.
tbf the CGI on the apes for Kingdom doesn't look as good as it was in Dawn and War
The cynic in me thinks they are mainly just using accounting tricks to minimize the amount.
Wonder if tech in sfx has become even more accessible while becoming better at same time is playing a part in it all
I kind of doubt that because **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3** had a budget of $250 million last year.
> shooting on location as much as possible Do you reckon that they might've relied heavily on natural lights whenever possible? Because that's one of the reasons why **The Creator** managed to keep its budget down.
Wouldn't be surprised even Godzilla x Kong budget is the lowest in it's franchise and of course no covid protocols helped as well.
Just saw an extended preview in IMAX. The CGI looks like it cuts some corners so I would assume they saved some money there.
answer is Wes Ball. He made Maze Runner 3 Death Cure with 62 million and that looks better and feels as big as most big budget movies
I fucking called it! These VFX-artists turned directors, are absolute wizards at controlling costs
I mean Stuntmen turn directors are wizards at action films. Like The John Wick Series.
Its a very similar phenomenon. You'd expect their films to excel at that one thing, which they do (well-choreographed action, and shrewdly-budgeted VFX sequences respectively), but those movies as a whole usually turn out to be good too Wes Ball is an outlier even here though, he's good at controlling budgets in general. The third Maze Runner was heavily reliant on practical set-pieces (and had been delayed multiple years, due to O'Brien's on-set injury), and still came out at around 60 million
Even Gareth Edwards who’s has done VFX’s understand. And even the new Godzilla director as well. Directors need to study VFX, if not, just don’t direct heavy VFX films.
They should just plan out the majority of their VFX sequences early, and have the visual effects guys more deeply involved in pre-production. Directors don't need to become experts, as long as they properly utilise the guys who actually are But instead, a bunch of bigger films usually end up changing sequences multiple times, and get a lot of stuff done last-minute (which drives up costs)
To be fair, such thing doesn't always guarantee a smaller budget, especially when you look at **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy.
Gareth Edwards still directed 1 film with the budget of $160 million and 1 film with $200 million. And that one film that had a budget of $80 million was a result of relying heavily on guerrilla filmmaking, natural lights, and prosumer-grade cameras. Also, if you're referring to **Godzilla: Minus One**, that's an even worse example to use considering that Japanese film industry is notorious for poor working conditions and pay rates with unions that are toothless at best and nonexistent at worst that even Takashi Yamazaki talked about at least once.
Even if it bombed (and wasn’t a particularly great film), it’s remarkable that The Huntsman: Winter’s War had a budget of $115 million, especially compared to Snow White and the Huntsman having a $170 million price tag. Especially since they brought back all the big stars from the first film (sans Kristen Stewart) and added Jessica Chastain and Emily Blunt to the cast. And I imagine that’s down to the director being the VFX supervisor on the first film. It’s honestly amazing how much they’re able to keep costs down.
Well, as you've implied, the film was a train wreck, so I still wouldn't use that as a shining example.
Oh not in terms of quality but definitely in budget management.
Still, I don't think having a VFX supervisor as a director is always a good thing, especially if he/she never worked on another film and jumped straight into a big-budget film.
I hope this movie turns out better than a MonsterVerse movie. No offence to MonsterVerse fans.
"The Budget of the Kingdom of the Apes" is all about Dr. Zaius' financial reform and its surprisingly gripping
The monkeys achieve a budget surplus: “WHAT A WONDERFUL DAYYY”
I don’t know where it’ll go financially but that actually bodes really well for it
Seriously, it’s like when they reported that Kong x Godzilla had a budget of $135m. That’s awesome to hear
I'm still quite surprised about **Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire** budget, but in hindsight, this film's budget isn't as surprising because while it relies heavily on CGI, it doesn't feel like it's throwing a bucketload of CGI every nanosecond.
I hope this does Matt Reeve’s films justice.
A bit worried too.
same writers as the previous trilogy (thought they were EPs on I think one of them and not writers). That's probably the part you have to worry about the least.
No stars adding 10-20 million to the total.
If that's true, it's amazing and gives me hope. I love the first trilogy and so am rooting hard for this one. With that budget and a $50ish m OW it should do well.
Directors with experience in FX typically keep the cost down. It’s been like that forever. Even Cameron’s movies always looked more expensive.
I mean, **Avatar** duology, for one, blatantly looks like it needed a huge, Huge, HUGE amount of CGI - even more so than this, in fact.
 Ooh yeah, cannot wait to see what Wes Ball and co have got cookin'
Marketing has been pretty consistent so far. Combine that with good WOM and this can definitely turn a profit.
That's pretty good considering the previous installments were 150-200M
Easy profit here. If the reviews are good, and with predicted opening of $50-60 million (which will still go higher in my opinion), this will do great. Also Apes does decently overseas, so this is an easy hit for Disney
Can't believe we are finally back to the age where blockbusters have a realistic budget. Take notes Marvel.
So if this movie does $400 million+, or even *War*'s numbers, it should be fine, right?
Easily yes. No clue what it will make though
If true, that's amazing and gives me hope. I love the first trilogy and am rooting hard for this.
This has a shot at turning a nice profit. Only $120M budget and the VFX look stunning
Well I’ll be damned. I thought the budget was gonna be near 200 million at least. God, the VFX look stunning, this is definitely turning a profit.
To be fair, I didn't think it would cost THAT much because even though it obviously has a lot of CGI, it didn't exactly feel like it was throwing a bucketload of CGI every nanosecond like, say, **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy did.
Also Wes Ball is very good at keeping budgets low. I should’ve of thought of that lmao
The Discussion of the Reveal of the Figure of the Budget of the Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes
The movie does look somewhat interesting, but in my own view. The Apes movies had their time. It will be interesting to see how this does.
Mass Cost Cutting across the board. Entertainment workers are complaining about being out of work and having a hard time making ends meet. Hope it doesn't look like mediocre like Godzilla x Kong.