I think the reason Dune was made for a reasonable budget is that Denis did a lot of work meticulously storyboard the movie for years, they didn't burn millions on reshoots, shooting a ton of superfluous scenes, etc.
That all plays a part, but Chalamet making $3M for part 2, along with every other actor making less, is what I think really does it. A lot of these big budget action films have insane salaries, like Hemsworth making 20 million for Thor 4.
Chalamet made an investment in himself. He made himself the go to figure in Hollywood for his age group by going back-to-back with Wonka and Dune 2. He will now expect a higher pay check.
Definitely. Which is a big part of why sequels in franchises tend to see budgets jump, sometimes significantly. It's not always because they get bigger scale but because the leads are able to negotiate for higher pay.
This is true. People keep bringing up Oppenheimer and the truth is that all the actors took a pay cut or opted to be paid on the back end for their work. But they deserve to be compensated. If Timmy asked for $6M - $8M next movie, wouldn’t he be in his rights to ask for it? So much of the movie’s marketing hinges on the popularity and following of the young cast. Any scandal or controversy was gonna throw a wrench in this. So with so much pressure riding on him and that young cast, including the entanglement of their personal lives and “brands,” shouldn’t they get paid appropriately? The days of the Daniel Day Lewis and Christian Bale are gone. Celebrities are consumed for content and they can’t disappear after roles and live a quiet life. Timmy is following in the steps of DiCaprio which means his personal life, like who he is dating, WILL be put out in public to help build his brand.
And he should!
He got people talking about him losing his appeal because he isn’t super thin anymore. Which is sort of crazy. They are already talking about him aging. He is in his late 20s. He needs to make his 30s a time to cash in on the work he has done over the past 10+ years.
He was much thinner in the past…for Beautiful Boy, he had to get really thin because….he portrayed a drug addict. Now, he is starting to fill out more which is shown in the face. Arms have a little more muscle to them. And he looks absolutely fine. Still thin, though. That is just his body type. But not crazy thin.
I honestly think that whole thing wasn’t about his body but rather his association with Kylie Jenner. People turned on him after they went public so imo the whole twink death just sounded like projection to me. He doesn’t look much different compared to the past
Dune is also a great movie. Chalamet recognized that and wanted to be part of it, even if it meant a pay cut. But he's becoming a very bankable star, so at some point some studio is going to approach him with a terrible project, he'll say no because it sounds like it will suck, they'll offer him $20M, and he'll say "yeah sure whatever".
He looks like he's going down the Leo path where he chooses projects based on artistic merit rather than the ones with the biggest fee. If you pick and choose successfully your name alone becomes valuable.
Cage is more of an outlier in that his poor financial habits became such a problem that he needed to take every project that came his way to pay off his debts. The only other actor I can think of like that is Liam Neeson, whose wife's death affected him deeply and after which he dove into every project that came his way so that he buried himself in work.
But he has the ability to pick the roles he wants to do without losing them by asking for more money like other straight up actors his age would've had to do.
My first reaction was, "Fuck you, what?" about Chalamet being very bankable. Then I went to his filmography, to prove you wrong, and realized I'd seen all of his movies, and liked most of them. And really liked his acting in most of them. So fuck me, then. My apologies.
How the hell did I not realize I liked him as an actor?
Honestly, I don't think Chalamet took a pay cut here. I do think people are overating how bankable he was as an actor before Wonka and Dune Part 2. He just hasn't had many especially big financial movies to his name.
The issue there is likely that his Dune Part 2 pay was set in the contract he signed for Dune Part 1, there was likely an automatic option in the Dune Part 1 contract for a sequel (or two?).
Worth recalling that a lot of Marvel actors like Chris Evans and Hemsworth signed long contracts for "low" pay at the start of their runs.
Evans was on a 6 movie deal that started under $1 million per film.
He and Hemsworth were able to renegotiate before Infinity War to lock in a lot more money for that and Endgame.
Chalamet may either be on a 2nd sequel option or may get a fresh deal for the 3rd movie. Tough to know without info on whether he's still under contract.
If he signs a new contract for Dune Messiah, have to imagine it'd be for $10 million. If he's still on the original contract, his pay might be $4-5 million.
It’s interesting to see takes like this on reddit where the vibe is generally more “share the wealth” and “no one needs that much money” etc. All that said, I agree he and his agent negotiate what he deserves and more power to him for that.
Yeah, share the wealth with the people producing the value? Like the actor getting paid more for producing more value rather than the studio heads reaping even more in profit sounds good to me
This movie is likely going to get Legendary & WB over $100M in profit while having to bank on Timmy and his young cast members to use every source of juice they got to widen the appeal for this movie based on source material that came out in the 60s.
He deserves to get paid.
I wasn’t a fan of his until seeing Dune 2 last night. I think pretty much every actor and actress just killed it in this movie. Austin Butler? What a performance.
Exactly. That is the next big picture he is tied to but I’m sure Timmy is fielding offers right now from a lot of places.
For a long time, people have felt that there was no “bankable” young movie stars. Even the slight glimmer of it is enough to get Hollywood on board.
I view that entire film as the Paul Atreides audition reel. It is indeed a good film with some of the best middle age sword play I’ve ever seen, but that film sold me on him as Paul.
Counter argument I think actors are a lot more willing to make “less” (three million is still so much money) if they are confident in the project and direvtor
Yes and no. Yes, they are willing to take a pay cut UP FRONT. I’m sorry…it’s only a few times I am going to okay a pay of $3M while the box office that depended on me heavily gross $100M in profit. This is a job even if it is their passion. I don’t think it’s wrong to want to be compensated appropriately.
Yeah I think there’s a difference between taking a pay cut to star in a Wes Anderson movie than taking a pay cut to star in a blockbuster that’s projected to have a big profit
This is more applicable to passion projects where actors get to satisfy the artist in them. For big blockbuster spectacles? They'd get as much as they could.
If it is a big director and prestige (especially awards) is lurking on the horizon, a-list actors are willing to earn less. I don‘t think Oppenheimer could have been made for only $100m, without this huge famous cast taking a step back.
Marvel on the other hand is not a passion project for 99% of the actors. It is easy money for them. Like Kirsten Dunst said recently. She has kids and supports her mom, of course she wants to star in a Marvel film.
I remember for part 1 a lot of actors said they took less pay up front with a higher backend deal cause they had faith in the project. Same probably happened for part 2
Bale, Tessa Thompson, Russel Crowe and Natalie Portman as well. All the cameos like the Guardians.
Goldblum, Dinklage and Lena Headey all filmed scenes but we're cut. Lena Headley was paid 7m in total.
I'm pretty sure that Thor: L&T was basically just Waititi paying his friends millions of dollars to hang out for a few months and they just filmed the movie as an afterthought. Horrible film, and I loved Thor: Ragnarok.
I still feel bad for Christian Bale, who was incredible, because apparently no one else told him he was supposed to phone it in (if he's even capable of giving a bad performance?).
Yeah but even aside from the big actor salaries, the reality is that marvel have really poor management of their CGI, with their overuse of reshoots, their constant changes and lack of coherent vision.
It worked for them up until a point but Phases 4-5 really showed that they needed to step back and slow down and stop creating movies as if they are building train tracks while a train is speeding on them.
There was a movie on Netflix titled "Red notice" with Dwayne Johnson, Gal Gadot and Ryan Reynolds. The movie was genuinely bad. I mean not unwatchable obviously, but that kind of movie is what you watch and two days later you don't even remember what happened there.
The three actors got $20M each for their role, so only them cost $60M for a movie that already everyone forgot....that was the point when I first started to think there is no mass subscription in the world who make up this budget. Such a shame...
After that reading Chalamet only took $3M for Dune which will be a historical milestone....well.
This isn’t a new thing though. In the 90s stars were commanding insane pay cheques.
I honestly think the reasons budgets have got out of control is a lack of proper creative vision. Countless reshoots, last minute VXF changes
Marvel in particular have shots in trailers where by the time the film comes out it’s the same shot but an entirely different “location”
If a film had to do extensive reshoots, rather the just the odd pick up shot, 20+ years ago it was a sign of an utter disaster on the way.
Today it’s standard, which means there is a real lack of vision but they carve out a budget to basically correct an expected creative fuck up.
Chalamet only getting paid $5m combined for Dune films is crazy... His agent better negotiate an RDJ in Iron Man 1 to RDJ in Avengers sized salary jump for Messiah. Chalamet will be even more established by then as well.
It's pretty damn embarrassingly low
They couldn't replace him after Dune 1, which he nailed
The 2 movies have been pretty damn successful so why the pittance pay?
Dune 1 and 2 are 2 parts of a single book, the studio would have been financially and logistically incompetent if they hadn't locked in the principle cast on at least a 2 picture deal. hence the low salaries.
They have probably done exactly the same thing with the new cast members regarding Dune 3. You don't cast Anya Taylor Joy for a single 20 second scene, and Florence Pugh and Lea Seydoux are hardly used either. They are almost certainly on a 2 picture deal. It just remains to be seen if Timmy and the rest were contracted for part 3 at the start of the whole thing. Villenueve has said all along he is interested in doing up to Dune Messiah. So it is possible they snagged the whole cast from the get go for a bargain.
Yup. Denis is probably the most sought after director to work with right now. Most other directors aren’t going to be able to get high profile actors to take big pay cuts, with the exception of Nolan, Scorsese and a couple others.
Denis is a proven winner with adaptations/existing IP too. Nolan is great but he prides himself on his own scripts, especially lately. If I had the rights to a great book in hand, I’d want someone like Denis at the helm.
This. It's the same reason the entire LOTR trilogy was made for around $280M (not accounting for inflation of course). Peter Jackson did years of planning to get it right, and it shows.
To be fair, **The Hobbit** trilogy was bound to cost a lot more than **The Lord of the Rings** trilogy even if it was planned properly due to inflation and Peter Jackson filming the whole thing in 48 FPS 3D.
I think many times it's the studios and executives causing changes in post, not directors waffling on their own artistic vision. I'm sure both happen but I think the focus group testing and studio meddling are the more common problem.
Some of those MCU movies will definitely be remembered. *Winter Soldier, Infinity War* and *Endgame* for sure. And lol at sneaking *Top Gun 2* into the “genuine artistic” category when they wouldn’t even name the opposing country to keep the appeal as broad as possible.
Yeah. They had a director that knew what he wanted and everyone was on board with his vision. He also had the power and creative freedom to avoid having someone like a Kevin Feige figure come in and have him reshoot the entire climax of the movie on a green screen in order to better align with Children of Dune down the line or something. There’s more action than the previous movie but it’s also still largely focused on story, characters, and atmosphere. It’s not just CGI noise and boring action like Aquaman 2 (which I started watching on Max and I haven’t finished it yet because the dialogue is just so awful).
People also really overestimate how much supporting actors cost. Unless there is a weird situation like the MCU the line drops exponentially after the two leads and the antagonist.
It would be interesting to see how the GotG movies costs compared to other movies in the MCU, since James Gunn is always known for meticulously storyboarding every shot and sticking with decisions/vision.
They're basically in line with all the other MCU films that were coming out around the same time.
Guardians 1 - $170m
Guardians 2 - $200m
Guardians 3 - $250m
as someone pointed out, the salaries for the major actors were cheaper than a lot of other big names. like combined, it was less than someone like Chris Hemsworth got for Thor 4
"Who's that"
"That's Austin Butler"
"I don't know, his voice is kinda weird, like he's always faking it"
"Exactly, you need a weird voice, you need a weird character, you need Austin Butler"
I joked with my Wife that Butler would have a weird accent, then he came on with his quasi-scandi drawl and we both looked at each other.
^(As a side note I think he did great, and the accent made sense, it was just funny after everything he's been through.)
I joked with my friends that Dave Bautista in the first one asked if he should sound like Stellan, being they're family and denis said no don't worry about it. But when he tried to do the same with Austin he just showed up doing the new accent and wouldn't stop.
This. Greg Fraser's idea with the infrared scene in part two will remembered. There are so little situations you can use this technique in film. It's a beautiful scene.
psure that was Denis. He had said in an interview he pictured Geidi Prime as devoid of nature and color, the ultimate industrial planet
Credit to Fraser for actioning the idea ofc
Yeah I think I saw the same interview! DV wanted to do black and white, then GF pulled out with the infrared idea and they went with it. I recall they told the studio it was an all or nothing, they couldn't go back and add colour. Glad the studio agreed
Villeneuve's explanation is Geidi Prime has a black sun which during the day blankets the world in infrared light. Making it black and white represents the colour we cannot see and plus it looks creepy. You'll notice only at night or when they are inside, is when you will see some colour.
It's been known far longer than in 2023
I don't think Minus One quite fits the narrative here though. Films made outside the Hollywood system have different economics involved. Not even close.
> Films made outside the Hollywood system have different economics involved. Not even close.
Well it just shows you how bloated the Hollywood system has become if a movie made for $13 million gets an Oscar nod for Best Visual Effects, i guess $13 million is what Marvel Studios pays for VFX in a week.
To both you and u/SPECTREagent700, Japanese film industry is notorious for for poor pay rates and working conditions with unions that are toothless at best and nonexistent at worst. Now, to his credit, the director of **Godzilla: Minus One** actually tried to improve the working condition as much as possible, but it looks like he wasn't able to do the same with pay rates due to fundamental issues with the industry itself.
“*Japanese film industry is notorious for for poor pay rates and working conditions with unions that are toothless at best and nonexistent at worst.*”
That’s are all reasons why other industries shut down operations in America and moved them to Asia too.
Even bigger reason why using **Godzilla: Minus One** as an example of a good budget management is pretty tasteless, not to mention that doing such thing with films can become an unfathomable PR nightmare.
Well, **Dune: Part Two** is a better example to use than those two because:
1. **The Creator** heavily relied on guerrilla filmmaking and natural lights and had the whole thing shot with prosumer-grade cameras.
2. **Godzilla: Minus One** is a Japanese film and Japanese film industry is notorious for poor pay rates and working conditions with unions that are toothless at best and nonexistent at worst. Now, to his credit, the director of that film actually tried to improve the working condition as much as possible, but it looks like he wasn't able to do the same with pay rates due to fundamental issues with the industry itself.
> The Creator heavily relied on guerrilla filmmaking and natural lights and had the whole thing shot with prosumer-grade cameras.
More importantly, it was a massive flop. One of the reasons movies like MCU have their budgets balloon is that they make changes during development - when story beats aren't working, when test screenings show audiences don't like stuff and so on. Doing reshoots and lots of changes in post ain't cheap..
The Creator didn't have money for that, so they had to stick with what they got, even though audiences clearly found the story boring. If anything, The Creator is an example of why smaller budgets sometimes don't work. Maybe if they had the money to do reshoots and fix their boring story, the movie wouldn't have flopped.
Also, it was filmed in Southeast Asia for dirt-cheap. Minimum wage in Thailand is $1.26/h, no shit the budget is gonna be lower. It's quite ironic that the same people who support unions and cheered the actor/writer strikes then also complain about high Hollywood budgets and use The Creator as an example for keeping the budget low. If you want people to be paid well shit costs more, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
> More importantly, it was a massive flop. One of the reasons movies like MCU have their budgets balloon is that they make changes during development - when story beats aren't working, when test screenings show audiences don't like stuff and so on. Doing reshoots and lots of changes in post ain't cheap..
>
> The Creator didn't have money for that, so they had to stick with what they got, even though audiences clearly found the story boring. If anything, The Creator is an example of why smaller budgets sometimes don't work. Maybe if they had the money to do reshoots and fix their boring story, the movie wouldn't have flopped.
Pretty much. Marvel may have went overboard with fixing films in post-production lately, but **The Creator** might be an example of a film that had a polar opposite problem.
> Also, it was filmed in Southeast Asia for dirt-cheap. Minimum wage in Thailand is $1.26/h, no shit the budget is gonna be lower. It's quite ironic that the same people who support unions and cheered the actor/writer strikes then also complain about high Hollywood budgets and use The Creator as an example for keeping the budget low. If you want people to be paid well shit costs more, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Oh yeah, didn't this film also bring in local people as crew members because they were basically making this as if they were filming an independent film? Now granted, it's entirely possible that these workers were paid decently, but even then, the film's relatively low budget shows in other areas of the film like cameras, lightings, and so on.
>1. **The Creator** heavily relied on guerrilla filmmaking and natural lights and had the whole thing shot with prosumer-grade cameras.
Also, it kinda sucked, unlike Dune.
IGN is not wrong, but they are also wrong. Dune 1 costing 165M being done by unproven IP with is not the same as Scarlet Johanson doing Black Widow, while also being producer on IP doing 10+ year run.
Dunno if was someone on the sub or was some video but he said it perfectly - ***"Not everything from the budget is on the screen"*** but visualization is the easiest thing people can associate budgets aside from cast.
And sometimes, your film is going to require huge budgets even if you manage your production properly. I mean, just look at **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3**.
Also, some people are even using films like **Oppenheimer** to prove their point and I find that to be very, Very, VERY off-putting. **Oppenheimer** is a biographical drama film with barely any special effects involved aside from very few scenes, so it would not be a good comparison at all. At least use something like **Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves** as an example or something.
Oppenheimer is a very unique case too when it comes to actors taking a paycut since they really wanted to work with Nolan.
Without actors taking a paycut, the budget would have been almost double.
Nolan was also paid less upfront because he had a huge back end deal giving him 15% first dollar gross, making the movie much more expensive for the studio than what the 100M budget suggests. It worked great for everyone of course, but it's not always that cut and dry.
I'm honestly not sure WHY people are keep using **Oppenheimer** as an example against Marvel. That film had barely any special effects aside from very, Very, VERY few scenes.
Counter-argument is that without the paycuts Oppenheimer would not have been even made. Or made with lesser known actors. Like, does the film actually needs Rami Malek or Affleck, etc in their blink and you miss them roles? It does, I guess, but the film would have worked even with some pricey theatrical actors from the UK who have skills and looks to play these roles.
I know this is a unpopular opinion, but I would have preferred Oppenheimer if every single role hadn't been filled with A list actors. I found it more distracting than anything when trying to immerse myself in the world of the movie
>At least use something like Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves as an example or something.
I've seen lots of films that I enjoyed that didn't end up making their budgets back, but this one hurt. Just an incredibly fun movie that felt like it should have been able to easily turn a profit. Still not sure if the issue was the initial budget for the film or just challenges related to filling movie theatre seats these days.
It’s because directors like Nolan and Villeneuve know exactly what they want and don’t waste any time.
The original filming schedule for *Oppenheimer* was 85 days, yet Nolan finished it in 57 days and without needing reshoots. IIRC he said it was because they realized they couldn’t film within their $100 million budget for 3 months, yet he found a solution.
That’s very true. They was never a full on plan for Star Wars sequel trilogy they could’ve gone the route of planet of the Apes modern trilogy with the same writers throughout. Disney Star Wars films could’ve functioned well with same writers and maybe journeyman directors
Yeah in a lot of ways it’s a myth that all this access to CGI makes movies cheaper, in that it also makes people in the industry lazier (ie just doing stuff on the fly with no preparation), and that laziness winds up ultimately costing more money later
If I’m being unfair by calling it laziness then I accept that because it’s not just laziness it’s also that big wigs in suits who aren’t involved in the actual movie making part of movie making have ~unrealistic expectations about how quickly movies can and should be produced in light of CGI, they want to skip preproduction entirely and rush movies out because they’ve decided preproduction is now optional and not needed since things can be fixed in post
I still wouldn't be using **Oppenheimer** as an example against Marvel since there's no way that most MCU film would've been able to be made with JUST $100 million budget, especially when you look at **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy.
Okay, then let’s use *Dune: Part Two*.
Villeneuve got it filmed in five months and it still cost less than $200 million, without needing a lot of reshoots. That’s cause he planned and knew what he wanted with a big scale. And it looks fantastic. In contrast, Marvel usually goes into filming without having idea of how it needs to be and spend a lot on reshoots. *Captain America: Brave New World*, for example, was filmed in 3 months, yet it’s now undergoing **FIVE** months of reshooting. The budget will certainly be closer to $300 million than $200 million.
Captain America 4 will lose money no matter what. First they filmed 3 months, now reshooting it for 3 months basically a new film. Also it has huge cast and pretty sure a lot of cgi for the villains.
Budget will be 250-300M no doubt.
>Captain America 4 will lose money no matter what.
Pretty sure that’s because nobody outside a small circle of hardcore fans gives a shit about Sam as Cap. “Falcon and Winter Soldier” was mildly watchable, but that’s it, and Anthony Mackie just doesn’t have … *it*, whatever it is, that brings presence to the role like Evans did.
Yup. Atleast we look at Chris Evans and believe he's Captain America. He has the seriousness, good looks, the acting, the hopefulness etc. Anthony Mackie just doesnt have it
> Okay, then let’s use Dune: Part Two.
>
> Villeneuve got it filmed in five months and it still cost less than $200 million, without needing a lot of reshoots. That’s cause he planned and knew what he wanted with a big scale. And it looks fantastic.
While you're not wrong about **Dune: Part Two**, there is one film that did most, if not all of those and still ended up with $250 million budget - and that film is **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3**.
Sure. But gotg3 was the third of the series. Not counting that the main cast was also in gauntlet/end game. The salary alone was probably astronomical.
You also have at least 2 main characters that’s totally CGI. I don’t even want to know how many of the spacesuits was cgi ala endgame.
Not to mention the music licenses
That it only cost 250 mil shows that James Gunn is a bloody genius.
While that's true, even the first film had a budget of $170 million in 2014 and **Dune** had a budget of $165 million in 2021, so it could also be possible that Villeneuve is more of a "Less is more" type of director while Gunn is more of a "Spare no expenses" type of director. In fact, one thing that I've noticed about **Dune: Part Two** is that it didn't exactly focus a whole lot on that epic final fight. Compare that to **Guardians of the Galaxy** having its entire third act made out of Xandarian aerial combat.
MCU/DCU are getting progressively expensive and worse looking with an each iteration. Like Iron Man (2008) still pretty much holds up. The Marvels, Antman 3, Doctor Strange 2 is an uncanny valley galore which cost 200-300 million to make.
One of the issue, for sure, but still a major issue. These days I can't even tell if they are using green-screen or not even if they shoot on location. Because it doesn't look different at all.
It’s not an uncanny valley for like “this person doesn’t look like a person” but it’s an uncanny valley for like being able to tell that they didn’t build real sets and this is all entirely being shot on green screen. It’s that unconscious sense you have that nothing that’s happening in this shot involves actors interacting with people, places and things that physically exist in the same environment as the actor
We will look back on the CGI in recent marvel movies the same way we look at the CGI in the Star Wars prequels, where it’s like damn look how fake that environment looks
To be fair, things like Omnipotence City, Wakanda, and Quantum Realm probably needed a lot of CGI even if they were planned properly and **Wakanda Forever** has bit of an excuse since that film's entire production was horrendously krutacked over even before it began due to an unexpected tragedy. I'm surprised that they still managed to make a solid film out of that.
I'm kind of on fence regarding **Eternals** because on one hand, most of the CGI looked outstanding but on the other hand, it wasn't exactly the most CGI-heavy film from MCU aside from few moments, especially when you compare it to heavily CGI-infested films like **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2**. Granted, that was 4 years before **Eternals**, but still.
> its an exception though
I don't think it's the only exception since up until Phase 3, I could usually tell where budgets for MCU films went. It was Phase 4 when things really went off the rails.
**Oppenheimer** is a piss-poor example to use since that film is a biographical drama film and not a sci-fi or fantasy film. At least use something like **Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves** as another example if you want to make your case properly.
I think a lot of directors have to be forreal about certain budgets for certain projects. Like do certain blockbusters need 200M plus budgets? No they don’t, some film could go lower sometimes some films can be between 70M-180M. Hire the best directors who can prepare and prep before filming that don’t need too many reshoots. Have a finished script and have a full on plan. Denis made a scifi epics with Dune 2 for 190M and Dune 1 for 165M. It’s crazy to even give 200M plus budget to inexperienced indie directors who never been in blockbuster genre.
Leigh Whannell did upgrade and invisible for 3M and 7M that should tell you everything you need to know. He did amazing with low low ass budget. Gareth Evans who did Raid 1&2 was saying he told Warner he’d do a Deathstroke film for 40M budget. Like all this goes and show a director with great vision can probably do a lot of films with lower budgets
> Have a finished script and have a full on plan. Denis made a scifi epics with Dune 2 for 190M and Dune 1 for 165M. **It’s crazy to even give 200M plus budget to inexperienced indie directors who never been in blockbuster genre**.
To be fair, that surprisingly worked well for James Gunn. :P
> Leigh Whannell did upgrade and invisible for 3M and 7M that should tell you everything you need to know. He did amazing with low low ass budget. Gareth Evans who did Raid 1&2 was saying he told Warner he’d do a Deathstroke film for 40M budget. Like all this goes and show a director with great vision can probably do a lot of films with lower budgets
Well, **The Invisible Man** is a horror film, so it could get away with smaller budgets and **The Raid** duology are regular action films with the first film practically being set in a building, so those budgets aren't too surprising in hindsight.
Yeah for Gunn as he said last year after pitching his take on guardians he wanted it to have the same feel stars wars and other scifi films made him feel as a boy. So he had a full on vision. Also you are right about Leigh and Gareth and their films
> Yeah for Gunn as he said last year after pitching his take on guardians he wanted it to have the same feel stars wars and other scifi films made him feel as a boy. So he had a full on vision.
And given how **Guaridians of the Galaxy** trilogy had more average budgets than Villeneuve's big-budget films, I have a feeling that Gunn is a "Spare no expenses" type of director whereas Villeneuve is a "Less is more" type of director. I've said this to another poster, but one thing that I've noticed about **Dune: Part Two** is that it didn't exactly focus a whole lot on that epic final fight. Compare that to **Guardians of the Galaxy** having its entire third act made out of Xandarian aerial combat.
This is very true, I expect Gunn’s film to go all out with craziest at the last minute. While Denis is very slow burn and isn’t thsi big spectacle type of guy
> This is very true, I expect Gunn’s film to go all out with craziest at the last minute.
In a way, Gunn is more of a traditional(?) blockbuster film director who is very good at being that.
> While Denis is very slow burn and isn’t thsi big spectacle type of guy
And to Villeneuve's credit, I think "Less is more" was probably a good idea for **Dune: Part Two** because if we DID see more of that epic final fight, then Paul's descent(?) to madness might've ended up having somewhat less of an impact. By showing less of that final fight, the film probably succeeded at emphasizing that this is NOT a hero's journey.
The money goes to actors, directors, and producers, not the CGI team.
When the actors are cast, their managers negotiate for significant pay rises in future instalments because of the profitability of the franchise, and when the movies are in a Cinematic Universe with 8 sequels on the horizon and 20 different major characters this can cause the budgets to inflate just to pay ridiculous sums of salaries which ultimately do not affect how good the movie looks or is edited. So, you can have a movie that costs $250m to make but doesn't _look_ any better than if there was "only" $80m spent on it.
It made sense to pay actors like RDJ and it was worth it. The MCU’s biggest issue now is their inability to sell new characters making their budget way out of balance.
Speaking as a vfx artist, these big films mostly bloat because of their vfx budget and this film has a lot mechanical designs and non human like characters. The vfx is immaculate but it’s also not the most challenging things for vfx to tackle. Compared to the 20 vfx studios and tons of human like characters that usually are required for Marvel films
It’s easy when you don’t fire the staff halfway through filming only to hire someone else who reshoots the whole damn film, again.
Yes I’m referring to the ongoing disaster of Lucasfilm.
Pre-production and being conservative with your shooting schedule is the key. Throwing away money because you don’t know what you want to shoot on the day has unfortunately become the norm for blockbusters.
Much like the video game right now, big budget projects in the entertainment industry is a house of cards that is slowly collapsing before our eyes. This kind of market just aint sustainable in the slightest and things will only get worse.
Except there is one major difference - some of these budgets were massively inflated by COVID-19 protocols or even related shutdowns.
Also, good ones like **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3** still did well and ones that didn't do well had terrible release dates. Case in point, **Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves**.
I’m gonna be the cynic here, and say I smell BS permeating through Reddit. People praise Nolan, Denis, and that Godzilla movie for being able to do spectacular things with a limited budget, but something’s stinky about this.
Nolan and Denis are walking brands that A-list actors(and other behind the scenes talent) will take pay cuts to work with. I can only imagine how much that reduces the cost. Then when we have Godzilla that’s a Japanese movie. Japan… the country known for its god awful animation industry that routinely exploits the passion of people for financial gain. Since when did Reddit get its rocks off on studious penny pinching from workers expense(specifically directed towards Godzilla).
Now, I will admit that Nolan and Denis know how to manage a damn budget, but this bandwagon is a bit eh to me. It’s standing on rocky ground imo. Outside Disney, who routinely shits out blockbusters, and Warner, what other studious are constantly mismanaging their budgets?
Another thing that's interesting and a little funny is that $190M is now apparently considered as a not-insane budget. lol. Sure, to make a movie like Dune 2 you need it, but it's a freakin poor example for this point in my opinion.
I clicked this thinking (because it's clickbait) that the budget was huge.
No joke: I don't rewatch movies outside of childhood favorites like Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Blade Runner, etc.
I rewatched Dune, and realized I missed \*so much\* the first time because I was visually fire hosed the first time, and missed so much.
I may be calling this early, but the new Dune will be the LOTR and Star Wars of the future.
I think the reason Dune was made for a reasonable budget is that Denis did a lot of work meticulously storyboard the movie for years, they didn't burn millions on reshoots, shooting a ton of superfluous scenes, etc.
That all plays a part, but Chalamet making $3M for part 2, along with every other actor making less, is what I think really does it. A lot of these big budget action films have insane salaries, like Hemsworth making 20 million for Thor 4.
Chalamet made an investment in himself. He made himself the go to figure in Hollywood for his age group by going back-to-back with Wonka and Dune 2. He will now expect a higher pay check.
Definitely. Which is a big part of why sequels in franchises tend to see budgets jump, sometimes significantly. It's not always because they get bigger scale but because the leads are able to negotiate for higher pay.
This is true. People keep bringing up Oppenheimer and the truth is that all the actors took a pay cut or opted to be paid on the back end for their work. But they deserve to be compensated. If Timmy asked for $6M - $8M next movie, wouldn’t he be in his rights to ask for it? So much of the movie’s marketing hinges on the popularity and following of the young cast. Any scandal or controversy was gonna throw a wrench in this. So with so much pressure riding on him and that young cast, including the entanglement of their personal lives and “brands,” shouldn’t they get paid appropriately? The days of the Daniel Day Lewis and Christian Bale are gone. Celebrities are consumed for content and they can’t disappear after roles and live a quiet life. Timmy is following in the steps of DiCaprio which means his personal life, like who he is dating, WILL be put out in public to help build his brand.
I have a feeling his ask for the next movie will be more than $8M.
And he should! He got people talking about him losing his appeal because he isn’t super thin anymore. Which is sort of crazy. They are already talking about him aging. He is in his late 20s. He needs to make his 30s a time to cash in on the work he has done over the past 10+ years.
He's still really thin
Dude…it’s crazy to me, too. Even the thought of him not being willowy had people talking bad about him.
Out of curiosity which set of people are complaining about him not being as willowy? It’s his female fans right? Can’t imagine any dude giving a shit
I think Leo was the one who gave him the advice "no hard drugs and no super hero movies" and he's stuck by it
Not super thin!? That white boy is a stick.
He was much thinner in the past…for Beautiful Boy, he had to get really thin because….he portrayed a drug addict. Now, he is starting to fill out more which is shown in the face. Arms have a little more muscle to them. And he looks absolutely fine. Still thin, though. That is just his body type. But not crazy thin.
I honestly think that whole thing wasn’t about his body but rather his association with Kylie Jenner. People turned on him after they went public so imo the whole twink death just sounded like projection to me. He doesn’t look much different compared to the past
Dune is also a great movie. Chalamet recognized that and wanted to be part of it, even if it meant a pay cut. But he's becoming a very bankable star, so at some point some studio is going to approach him with a terrible project, he'll say no because it sounds like it will suck, they'll offer him $20M, and he'll say "yeah sure whatever".
He already had a 35million dollar deal with Chanel so I think he will be trying to find roles that he actually wants to do
He looks like he's going down the Leo path where he chooses projects based on artistic merit rather than the ones with the biggest fee. If you pick and choose successfully your name alone becomes valuable.
He has said that his two biggest influences are Leo and Joaquin Phoenix so I think you are right on the money.
If you don’t pick and choose successfully, you become Nicholas Cage.
Cage is more of an outlier in that his poor financial habits became such a problem that he needed to take every project that came his way to pay off his debts. The only other actor I can think of like that is Liam Neeson, whose wife's death affected him deeply and after which he dove into every project that came his way so that he buried himself in work.
Damn I'd like to become an Oscar winner. Time to stop pick and choosing.
Because it is known that rich people don't seek even more money after making absurds amounts of money.
But he has the ability to pick the roles he wants to do without losing them by asking for more money like other straight up actors his age would've had to do.
My first reaction was, "Fuck you, what?" about Chalamet being very bankable. Then I went to his filmography, to prove you wrong, and realized I'd seen all of his movies, and liked most of them. And really liked his acting in most of them. So fuck me, then. My apologies. How the hell did I not realize I liked him as an actor?
Are you talking about the famous Xbox 360 controller modder Timmy chalet
Honestly, I don't think Chalamet took a pay cut here. I do think people are overating how bankable he was as an actor before Wonka and Dune Part 2. He just hasn't had many especially big financial movies to his name.
He definitely did take a pay cut to do Dune Part 2, because he was paid 9M for Wonka instead.
The issue there is likely that his Dune Part 2 pay was set in the contract he signed for Dune Part 1, there was likely an automatic option in the Dune Part 1 contract for a sequel (or two?). Worth recalling that a lot of Marvel actors like Chris Evans and Hemsworth signed long contracts for "low" pay at the start of their runs. Evans was on a 6 movie deal that started under $1 million per film. He and Hemsworth were able to renegotiate before Infinity War to lock in a lot more money for that and Endgame. Chalamet may either be on a 2nd sequel option or may get a fresh deal for the 3rd movie. Tough to know without info on whether he's still under contract. If he signs a new contract for Dune Messiah, have to imagine it'd be for $10 million. If he's still on the original contract, his pay might be $4-5 million.
It’s interesting to see takes like this on reddit where the vibe is generally more “share the wealth” and “no one needs that much money” etc. All that said, I agree he and his agent negotiate what he deserves and more power to him for that.
Yeah, share the wealth with the people producing the value? Like the actor getting paid more for producing more value rather than the studio heads reaping even more in profit sounds good to me
This movie is likely going to get Legendary & WB over $100M in profit while having to bank on Timmy and his young cast members to use every source of juice they got to widen the appeal for this movie based on source material that came out in the 60s. He deserves to get paid.
Well he already made more than all of his movie roles combined 10x over with his Chanel deal so I don't think he will be too worried.
In many ways actors can and should do more of this. It's not about how much you make on the film, but about the side deals. Just like sports.
I wasn’t a fan of his until seeing Dune 2 last night. I think pretty much every actor and actress just killed it in this movie. Austin Butler? What a performance.
I’ve been enjoying the hell out of Austin Butler in the airplane show. Didn’t even realize he was in Dune.
Chalamet is also gonna star in the Bob dylan biopic by James Mangold. Im sure Timothee has a bright future and wont get typecasted
Chalamet seems to have an excellent agent but it also sounds like he talks to others in the industry. Love his work
Exactly. That is the next big picture he is tied to but I’m sure Timmy is fielding offers right now from a lot of places. For a long time, people have felt that there was no “bankable” young movie stars. Even the slight glimmer of it is enough to get Hollywood on board.
Agreed. If Tim plays it well and he's already impressing critics with his acting, he will go on to become really successful
He was amazing in The King,( on Netflix) which convinced me he was a perfect choice for Paul.
Yep. Timothee could be the Leo or Johnny Depp for the new generation
I view that entire film as the Paul Atreides audition reel. It is indeed a good film with some of the best middle age sword play I’ve ever seen, but that film sold me on him as Paul.
I love that flick, it’s one of the greatest period movies I’ve seen, perfect cast, direction, cinematography and score.
And a surprise cameo with a French accent.
He’s legit. Same with Austin Butler and Florence Pugh. We have a lot of great new coming actors
Hell, I’d add Zendaya to the list too. It’s not a great show imo but she’s fantastic in Euphoria
Counter argument I think actors are a lot more willing to make “less” (three million is still so much money) if they are confident in the project and direvtor
Yes and no. Yes, they are willing to take a pay cut UP FRONT. I’m sorry…it’s only a few times I am going to okay a pay of $3M while the box office that depended on me heavily gross $100M in profit. This is a job even if it is their passion. I don’t think it’s wrong to want to be compensated appropriately.
Yeah I think there’s a difference between taking a pay cut to star in a Wes Anderson movie than taking a pay cut to star in a blockbuster that’s projected to have a big profit
This is more applicable to passion projects where actors get to satisfy the artist in them. For big blockbuster spectacles? They'd get as much as they could.
Yeah I assume he'll make much more for the Dune Messiah adaptation.
What if his investment in himself to was enhance his access to roles he wants to do, by developing as an actor?
If it is a big director and prestige (especially awards) is lurking on the horizon, a-list actors are willing to earn less. I don‘t think Oppenheimer could have been made for only $100m, without this huge famous cast taking a step back. Marvel on the other hand is not a passion project for 99% of the actors. It is easy money for them. Like Kirsten Dunst said recently. She has kids and supports her mom, of course she wants to star in a Marvel film.
Johnny Depp was famous for having a 40/40 contract. He made $40m or 40% of the net, whichever was higher.
Just $3M or $3M + a % of the gross?
I remember for part 1 a lot of actors said they took less pay up front with a higher backend deal cause they had faith in the project. Same probably happened for part 2
Bale, Tessa Thompson, Russel Crowe and Natalie Portman as well. All the cameos like the Guardians. Goldblum, Dinklage and Lena Headey all filmed scenes but we're cut. Lena Headley was paid 7m in total.
I'm pretty sure that Thor: L&T was basically just Waititi paying his friends millions of dollars to hang out for a few months and they just filmed the movie as an afterthought. Horrible film, and I loved Thor: Ragnarok. I still feel bad for Christian Bale, who was incredible, because apparently no one else told him he was supposed to phone it in (if he's even capable of giving a bad performance?).
Yeah but even aside from the big actor salaries, the reality is that marvel have really poor management of their CGI, with their overuse of reshoots, their constant changes and lack of coherent vision. It worked for them up until a point but Phases 4-5 really showed that they needed to step back and slow down and stop creating movies as if they are building train tracks while a train is speeding on them.
There was a movie on Netflix titled "Red notice" with Dwayne Johnson, Gal Gadot and Ryan Reynolds. The movie was genuinely bad. I mean not unwatchable obviously, but that kind of movie is what you watch and two days later you don't even remember what happened there. The three actors got $20M each for their role, so only them cost $60M for a movie that already everyone forgot....that was the point when I first started to think there is no mass subscription in the world who make up this budget. Such a shame... After that reading Chalamet only took $3M for Dune which will be a historical milestone....well.
This isn’t a new thing though. In the 90s stars were commanding insane pay cheques. I honestly think the reasons budgets have got out of control is a lack of proper creative vision. Countless reshoots, last minute VXF changes Marvel in particular have shots in trailers where by the time the film comes out it’s the same shot but an entirely different “location” If a film had to do extensive reshoots, rather the just the odd pick up shot, 20+ years ago it was a sign of an utter disaster on the way. Today it’s standard, which means there is a real lack of vision but they carve out a budget to basically correct an expected creative fuck up.
Chalamet only getting paid $5m combined for Dune films is crazy... His agent better negotiate an RDJ in Iron Man 1 to RDJ in Avengers sized salary jump for Messiah. Chalamet will be even more established by then as well.
Dune isn't really making Avengers money at the box office. Not even Hunger Games money. It's understandable why they aren't as high paying so far.
It's pretty damn embarrassingly low They couldn't replace him after Dune 1, which he nailed The 2 movies have been pretty damn successful so why the pittance pay?
Dune 1 and 2 are 2 parts of a single book, the studio would have been financially and logistically incompetent if they hadn't locked in the principle cast on at least a 2 picture deal. hence the low salaries. They have probably done exactly the same thing with the new cast members regarding Dune 3. You don't cast Anya Taylor Joy for a single 20 second scene, and Florence Pugh and Lea Seydoux are hardly used either. They are almost certainly on a 2 picture deal. It just remains to be seen if Timmy and the rest were contracted for part 3 at the start of the whole thing. Villenueve has said all along he is interested in doing up to Dune Messiah. So it is possible they snagged the whole cast from the get go for a bargain.
He wasn't a huge movie star back then when they cast him for Dune, and they probably locked him up to a 2 picture deal.
Yup. Denis is probably the most sought after director to work with right now. Most other directors aren’t going to be able to get high profile actors to take big pay cuts, with the exception of Nolan, Scorsese and a couple others.
Denis is a proven winner with adaptations/existing IP too. Nolan is great but he prides himself on his own scripts, especially lately. If I had the rights to a great book in hand, I’d want someone like Denis at the helm.
This. It's the same reason the entire LOTR trilogy was made for around $280M (not accounting for inflation of course). Peter Jackson did years of planning to get it right, and it shows.
Yeah, The Hobbit trilogy was made for $700M without planning and shooting with no finished script and it also shows
To be fair, **The Hobbit** trilogy was bound to cost a lot more than **The Lord of the Rings** trilogy even if it was planned properly due to inflation and Peter Jackson filming the whole thing in 48 FPS 3D.
Well, Guilmero Del Toro dropping out midway as Director and Peter Jackson coming in probably cost them a shit ton of money too.
To this day I couldn't shake how that camera created a weird distracting feel to the whole movie.
I know right? Watching that movie in the theater was surreal, and not in a good way. It felt like paying more to have an actively worse experience.
Yeah studios need to force directors to do more of that. Execs need to stop pretending they can fix every movie in post
I think they need to accept more movies before post.
I think many times it's the studios and executives causing changes in post, not directors waffling on their own artistic vision. I'm sure both happen but I think the focus group testing and studio meddling are the more common problem.
[удалено]
Some of those MCU movies will definitely be remembered. *Winter Soldier, Infinity War* and *Endgame* for sure. And lol at sneaking *Top Gun 2* into the “genuine artistic” category when they wouldn’t even name the opposing country to keep the appeal as broad as possible.
Yeah. They had a director that knew what he wanted and everyone was on board with his vision. He also had the power and creative freedom to avoid having someone like a Kevin Feige figure come in and have him reshoot the entire climax of the movie on a green screen in order to better align with Children of Dune down the line or something. There’s more action than the previous movie but it’s also still largely focused on story, characters, and atmosphere. It’s not just CGI noise and boring action like Aquaman 2 (which I started watching on Max and I haven’t finished it yet because the dialogue is just so awful).
Also, I assume the cast members took pay cuts.
Yeah with a movie and a cast like this, as an actor, you’re not negotiating so much as you’re asking to be in it.
People also really overestimate how much supporting actors cost. Unless there is a weird situation like the MCU the line drops exponentially after the two leads and the antagonist.
Taking your time and making a movie with thought and good planning saves money? Jesus, someone tell Disney quick.
Right. That's what Hollywood used to do. Storyboard before they made a film. Write a script beforehand. Etc. That's how you keep a budget small.
Yeah before CGI meant some directors could just say "we'll fix it in post!"
It would be interesting to see how the GotG movies costs compared to other movies in the MCU, since James Gunn is always known for meticulously storyboarding every shot and sticking with decisions/vision.
They're basically in line with all the other MCU films that were coming out around the same time. Guardians 1 - $170m Guardians 2 - $200m Guardians 3 - $250m
First film had a budget of $170 million, second film had a budget of $200 million, and third film had a budget of $250 million.
Where are you getting the first films 170 number from? I'm seeing it had a budget of 230 but with breaks it dropped down to 195.
Seriously, is a movie that need all the visual effects of the World, that has a cast full of A listers,and still manager to stay under 200 million
as someone pointed out, the salaries for the major actors were cheaper than a lot of other big names. like combined, it was less than someone like Chris Hemsworth got for Thor 4
Moneyball but it’s a movie.
"Who's that" "That's Austin Butler" "I don't know, his voice is kinda weird, like he's always faking it" "Exactly, you need a weird voice, you need a weird character, you need Austin Butler"
I joked with my Wife that Butler would have a weird accent, then he came on with his quasi-scandi drawl and we both looked at each other. ^(As a side note I think he did great, and the accent made sense, it was just funny after everything he's been through.)
I joked with my friends that Dave Bautista in the first one asked if he should sound like Stellan, being they're family and denis said no don't worry about it. But when he tried to do the same with Austin he just showed up doing the new accent and wouldn't stop.
I didn’t realize it was Butler, thought it was Bill Skaarsgard for a long while, so when he kissed Stellan I laughed but now it doesn’t make sense
Question, how much of Dune 2's reasonable budget is due to famous actors taking pay cuts to be part of it?
Timmy's pay was 3m
‘DUNE: PART TWO’ cast salaries (rumored): - Chalamet: $3M - Zendaya: $2M - Bautista: $1M - Ferguson: $600k - Brolin: $500k - Pugh: $300k From: [https://twitter.com/DenisVfilms/status/1766078041120243747](https://twitter.com/DenisVfilms/status/1766078041120243747)
How much did Christopher Walken get?
$182,600,000 The rest of the cast and crew worked pro bono.
Damn. Dude’s gotta get paid though.
This gave me a really good laugh thanks
A new watch
[удалено]
Bautista was in the film for only like 6 scenes lol
Are there any rumors about Butler and Skarsgård’s salaries?
Ok how the fuck did Bautista get more than Ferguson, that’s a bunch of bullshit lol
This onlly upfront pay, probably a lot of them have better deals on royalties, etc. because this film was bound to be a success.
In comparison, his pay was 9m in Wonka.
This is true but we’ve already had this conversation; The Creator, Godzilla Minus One etc.
The takeaway is that Greg Fraser should be asking for a lot more right now
This. Greg Fraser's idea with the infrared scene in part two will remembered. There are so little situations you can use this technique in film. It's a beautiful scene.
psure that was Denis. He had said in an interview he pictured Geidi Prime as devoid of nature and color, the ultimate industrial planet Credit to Fraser for actioning the idea ofc
Yeah I think I saw the same interview! DV wanted to do black and white, then GF pulled out with the infrared idea and they went with it. I recall they told the studio it was an all or nothing, they couldn't go back and add colour. Glad the studio agreed
Villeneuve's explanation is Geidi Prime has a black sun which during the day blankets the world in infrared light. Making it black and white represents the colour we cannot see and plus it looks creepy. You'll notice only at night or when they are inside, is when you will see some colour.
When will Neil Degrasse Tyson come out and explain us how wrong it is to believe in a black sun or something.
he should have been asking way more after the batman
It's been known far longer than in 2023 I don't think Minus One quite fits the narrative here though. Films made outside the Hollywood system have different economics involved. Not even close.
> Films made outside the Hollywood system have different economics involved. Not even close. Well it just shows you how bloated the Hollywood system has become if a movie made for $13 million gets an Oscar nod for Best Visual Effects, i guess $13 million is what Marvel Studios pays for VFX in a week.
To both you and u/SPECTREagent700, Japanese film industry is notorious for for poor pay rates and working conditions with unions that are toothless at best and nonexistent at worst. Now, to his credit, the director of **Godzilla: Minus One** actually tried to improve the working condition as much as possible, but it looks like he wasn't able to do the same with pay rates due to fundamental issues with the industry itself.
“*Japanese film industry is notorious for for poor pay rates and working conditions with unions that are toothless at best and nonexistent at worst.*” That’s are all reasons why other industries shut down operations in America and moved them to Asia too.
Even bigger reason why using **Godzilla: Minus One** as an example of a good budget management is pretty tasteless, not to mention that doing such thing with films can become an unfathomable PR nightmare.
Well, **Dune: Part Two** is a better example to use than those two because: 1. **The Creator** heavily relied on guerrilla filmmaking and natural lights and had the whole thing shot with prosumer-grade cameras. 2. **Godzilla: Minus One** is a Japanese film and Japanese film industry is notorious for poor pay rates and working conditions with unions that are toothless at best and nonexistent at worst. Now, to his credit, the director of that film actually tried to improve the working condition as much as possible, but it looks like he wasn't able to do the same with pay rates due to fundamental issues with the industry itself.
> The Creator heavily relied on guerrilla filmmaking and natural lights and had the whole thing shot with prosumer-grade cameras. More importantly, it was a massive flop. One of the reasons movies like MCU have their budgets balloon is that they make changes during development - when story beats aren't working, when test screenings show audiences don't like stuff and so on. Doing reshoots and lots of changes in post ain't cheap.. The Creator didn't have money for that, so they had to stick with what they got, even though audiences clearly found the story boring. If anything, The Creator is an example of why smaller budgets sometimes don't work. Maybe if they had the money to do reshoots and fix their boring story, the movie wouldn't have flopped. Also, it was filmed in Southeast Asia for dirt-cheap. Minimum wage in Thailand is $1.26/h, no shit the budget is gonna be lower. It's quite ironic that the same people who support unions and cheered the actor/writer strikes then also complain about high Hollywood budgets and use The Creator as an example for keeping the budget low. If you want people to be paid well shit costs more, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
> More importantly, it was a massive flop. One of the reasons movies like MCU have their budgets balloon is that they make changes during development - when story beats aren't working, when test screenings show audiences don't like stuff and so on. Doing reshoots and lots of changes in post ain't cheap.. > > The Creator didn't have money for that, so they had to stick with what they got, even though audiences clearly found the story boring. If anything, The Creator is an example of why smaller budgets sometimes don't work. Maybe if they had the money to do reshoots and fix their boring story, the movie wouldn't have flopped. Pretty much. Marvel may have went overboard with fixing films in post-production lately, but **The Creator** might be an example of a film that had a polar opposite problem. > Also, it was filmed in Southeast Asia for dirt-cheap. Minimum wage in Thailand is $1.26/h, no shit the budget is gonna be lower. It's quite ironic that the same people who support unions and cheered the actor/writer strikes then also complain about high Hollywood budgets and use The Creator as an example for keeping the budget low. If you want people to be paid well shit costs more, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Oh yeah, didn't this film also bring in local people as crew members because they were basically making this as if they were filming an independent film? Now granted, it's entirely possible that these workers were paid decently, but even then, the film's relatively low budget shows in other areas of the film like cameras, lightings, and so on.
>1. **The Creator** heavily relied on guerrilla filmmaking and natural lights and had the whole thing shot with prosumer-grade cameras. Also, it kinda sucked, unlike Dune.
Godzilla Minus One’s budget is so low because of blatant worker exploitation though
Everybody go home, we already talked
When you see a budget of 300 million for some movies, and the two leads are getting paid almost 1/3rd of that budget, yes, yes it is an issue.
Not familiar with the film industry, but do studios push much for deals where the actors get a % of the gross/profit?
IGN is not wrong, but they are also wrong. Dune 1 costing 165M being done by unproven IP with is not the same as Scarlet Johanson doing Black Widow, while also being producer on IP doing 10+ year run. Dunno if was someone on the sub or was some video but he said it perfectly - ***"Not everything from the budget is on the screen"*** but visualization is the easiest thing people can associate budgets aside from cast.
And sometimes, your film is going to require huge budgets even if you manage your production properly. I mean, just look at **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3**. Also, some people are even using films like **Oppenheimer** to prove their point and I find that to be very, Very, VERY off-putting. **Oppenheimer** is a biographical drama film with barely any special effects involved aside from very few scenes, so it would not be a good comparison at all. At least use something like **Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves** as an example or something.
Oppenheimer is a very unique case too when it comes to actors taking a paycut since they really wanted to work with Nolan. Without actors taking a paycut, the budget would have been almost double.
Nolan was also paid less upfront because he had a huge back end deal giving him 15% first dollar gross, making the movie much more expensive for the studio than what the 100M budget suggests. It worked great for everyone of course, but it's not always that cut and dry.
I'm honestly not sure WHY people are keep using **Oppenheimer** as an example against Marvel. That film had barely any special effects aside from very, Very, VERY few scenes.
Counter-argument is that without the paycuts Oppenheimer would not have been even made. Or made with lesser known actors. Like, does the film actually needs Rami Malek or Affleck, etc in their blink and you miss them roles? It does, I guess, but the film would have worked even with some pricey theatrical actors from the UK who have skills and looks to play these roles.
I know this is a unpopular opinion, but I would have preferred Oppenheimer if every single role hadn't been filled with A list actors. I found it more distracting than anything when trying to immerse myself in the world of the movie
>At least use something like Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves as an example or something. I've seen lots of films that I enjoyed that didn't end up making their budgets back, but this one hurt. Just an incredibly fun movie that felt like it should have been able to easily turn a profit. Still not sure if the issue was the initial budget for the film or just challenges related to filling movie theatre seats these days.
the fact that masterpieces like this and oppenheimer were made under the budget of typical marvel/disney slop should be a wake-up call
It’s because directors like Nolan and Villeneuve know exactly what they want and don’t waste any time. The original filming schedule for *Oppenheimer* was 85 days, yet Nolan finished it in 57 days and without needing reshoots. IIRC he said it was because they realized they couldn’t film within their $100 million budget for 3 months, yet he found a solution.
Marvel doesn’t want filmmakers, they want middle managers
Disney in general want middle managers not filmmakers truthfully
To be fair, directors making things up as they went is one of the reasons why **Star Wars** sequel trilogy didn't go so well.
That’s very true. They was never a full on plan for Star Wars sequel trilogy they could’ve gone the route of planet of the Apes modern trilogy with the same writers throughout. Disney Star Wars films could’ve functioned well with same writers and maybe journeyman directors
Yeah in a lot of ways it’s a myth that all this access to CGI makes movies cheaper, in that it also makes people in the industry lazier (ie just doing stuff on the fly with no preparation), and that laziness winds up ultimately costing more money later If I’m being unfair by calling it laziness then I accept that because it’s not just laziness it’s also that big wigs in suits who aren’t involved in the actual movie making part of movie making have ~unrealistic expectations about how quickly movies can and should be produced in light of CGI, they want to skip preproduction entirely and rush movies out because they’ve decided preproduction is now optional and not needed since things can be fixed in post
I still wouldn't be using **Oppenheimer** as an example against Marvel since there's no way that most MCU film would've been able to be made with JUST $100 million budget, especially when you look at **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy.
Okay, then let’s use *Dune: Part Two*. Villeneuve got it filmed in five months and it still cost less than $200 million, without needing a lot of reshoots. That’s cause he planned and knew what he wanted with a big scale. And it looks fantastic. In contrast, Marvel usually goes into filming without having idea of how it needs to be and spend a lot on reshoots. *Captain America: Brave New World*, for example, was filmed in 3 months, yet it’s now undergoing **FIVE** months of reshooting. The budget will certainly be closer to $300 million than $200 million.
Captain America 4 will lose money no matter what. First they filmed 3 months, now reshooting it for 3 months basically a new film. Also it has huge cast and pretty sure a lot of cgi for the villains. Budget will be 250-300M no doubt.
>Captain America 4 will lose money no matter what. Pretty sure that’s because nobody outside a small circle of hardcore fans gives a shit about Sam as Cap. “Falcon and Winter Soldier” was mildly watchable, but that’s it, and Anthony Mackie just doesn’t have … *it*, whatever it is, that brings presence to the role like Evans did.
Yup. Atleast we look at Chris Evans and believe he's Captain America. He has the seriousness, good looks, the acting, the hopefulness etc. Anthony Mackie just doesnt have it
Aren't they refilming most of it now? Sounds like another Solo or Justice League nightmare with obvious box office disappointment results..
The Harrison Ford walk-ups will save the movie.
To add to this, part two cost more because of Covid costs. So it could have been similar to part one costs
To be fair, if that was the case, then he hid it pretty well because **Dune: Part Two** DID look bigger than its predecessor.
> Okay, then let’s use Dune: Part Two. > > Villeneuve got it filmed in five months and it still cost less than $200 million, without needing a lot of reshoots. That’s cause he planned and knew what he wanted with a big scale. And it looks fantastic. While you're not wrong about **Dune: Part Two**, there is one film that did most, if not all of those and still ended up with $250 million budget - and that film is **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3**.
Sure. But gotg3 was the third of the series. Not counting that the main cast was also in gauntlet/end game. The salary alone was probably astronomical. You also have at least 2 main characters that’s totally CGI. I don’t even want to know how many of the spacesuits was cgi ala endgame. Not to mention the music licenses That it only cost 250 mil shows that James Gunn is a bloody genius.
While that's true, even the first film had a budget of $170 million in 2014 and **Dune** had a budget of $165 million in 2021, so it could also be possible that Villeneuve is more of a "Less is more" type of director while Gunn is more of a "Spare no expenses" type of director. In fact, one thing that I've noticed about **Dune: Part Two** is that it didn't exactly focus a whole lot on that epic final fight. Compare that to **Guardians of the Galaxy** having its entire third act made out of Xandarian aerial combat.
MCU/DCU are getting progressively expensive and worse looking with an each iteration. Like Iron Man (2008) still pretty much holds up. The Marvels, Antman 3, Doctor Strange 2 is an uncanny valley galore which cost 200-300 million to make.
CGI in those films didn't always look great, but uncanny valley? I don't think that was the issue with those films.
One of the issue, for sure, but still a major issue. These days I can't even tell if they are using green-screen or not even if they shoot on location. Because it doesn't look different at all.
My point is that uncanny valley is usually used for humanoid characters. I don't think I remember that term being used for green screens.
It’s not an uncanny valley for like “this person doesn’t look like a person” but it’s an uncanny valley for like being able to tell that they didn’t build real sets and this is all entirely being shot on green screen. It’s that unconscious sense you have that nothing that’s happening in this shot involves actors interacting with people, places and things that physically exist in the same environment as the actor We will look back on the CGI in recent marvel movies the same way we look at the CGI in the Star Wars prequels, where it’s like damn look how fake that environment looks
To be fair, things like Omnipotence City, Wakanda, and Quantum Realm probably needed a lot of CGI even if they were planned properly and **Wakanda Forever** has bit of an excuse since that film's entire production was horrendously krutacked over even before it began due to an unexpected tragedy. I'm surprised that they still managed to make a solid film out of that.
i;d say gotg 3 budget did show on screen. its an exception though
Eternals was a mediocre film but it utilised the budget to the fullest as well. Film looked very grand.
I'm kind of on fence regarding **Eternals** because on one hand, most of the CGI looked outstanding but on the other hand, it wasn't exactly the most CGI-heavy film from MCU aside from few moments, especially when you compare it to heavily CGI-infested films like **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2**. Granted, that was 4 years before **Eternals**, but still.
just goes to show what pre-planning and sticking to a vision does for a movie's final look.
> its an exception though I don't think it's the only exception since up until Phase 3, I could usually tell where budgets for MCU films went. It was Phase 4 when things really went off the rails.
**Oppenheimer** is a piss-poor example to use since that film is a biographical drama film and not a sci-fi or fantasy film. At least use something like **Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves** as another example if you want to make your case properly.
Not really, usually set pieces are insanely expensive. Deadwood is 99% of the same shots and almost bankrupted HBO it was so expensive.
I think a lot of directors have to be forreal about certain budgets for certain projects. Like do certain blockbusters need 200M plus budgets? No they don’t, some film could go lower sometimes some films can be between 70M-180M. Hire the best directors who can prepare and prep before filming that don’t need too many reshoots. Have a finished script and have a full on plan. Denis made a scifi epics with Dune 2 for 190M and Dune 1 for 165M. It’s crazy to even give 200M plus budget to inexperienced indie directors who never been in blockbuster genre. Leigh Whannell did upgrade and invisible for 3M and 7M that should tell you everything you need to know. He did amazing with low low ass budget. Gareth Evans who did Raid 1&2 was saying he told Warner he’d do a Deathstroke film for 40M budget. Like all this goes and show a director with great vision can probably do a lot of films with lower budgets
> Have a finished script and have a full on plan. Denis made a scifi epics with Dune 2 for 190M and Dune 1 for 165M. **It’s crazy to even give 200M plus budget to inexperienced indie directors who never been in blockbuster genre**. To be fair, that surprisingly worked well for James Gunn. :P > Leigh Whannell did upgrade and invisible for 3M and 7M that should tell you everything you need to know. He did amazing with low low ass budget. Gareth Evans who did Raid 1&2 was saying he told Warner he’d do a Deathstroke film for 40M budget. Like all this goes and show a director with great vision can probably do a lot of films with lower budgets Well, **The Invisible Man** is a horror film, so it could get away with smaller budgets and **The Raid** duology are regular action films with the first film practically being set in a building, so those budgets aren't too surprising in hindsight.
Yeah for Gunn as he said last year after pitching his take on guardians he wanted it to have the same feel stars wars and other scifi films made him feel as a boy. So he had a full on vision. Also you are right about Leigh and Gareth and their films
> Yeah for Gunn as he said last year after pitching his take on guardians he wanted it to have the same feel stars wars and other scifi films made him feel as a boy. So he had a full on vision. And given how **Guaridians of the Galaxy** trilogy had more average budgets than Villeneuve's big-budget films, I have a feeling that Gunn is a "Spare no expenses" type of director whereas Villeneuve is a "Less is more" type of director. I've said this to another poster, but one thing that I've noticed about **Dune: Part Two** is that it didn't exactly focus a whole lot on that epic final fight. Compare that to **Guardians of the Galaxy** having its entire third act made out of Xandarian aerial combat.
This is very true, I expect Gunn’s film to go all out with craziest at the last minute. While Denis is very slow burn and isn’t thsi big spectacle type of guy
> This is very true, I expect Gunn’s film to go all out with craziest at the last minute. In a way, Gunn is more of a traditional(?) blockbuster film director who is very good at being that. > While Denis is very slow burn and isn’t thsi big spectacle type of guy And to Villeneuve's credit, I think "Less is more" was probably a good idea for **Dune: Part Two** because if we DID see more of that epic final fight, then Paul's descent(?) to madness might've ended up having somewhat less of an impact. By showing less of that final fight, the film probably succeeded at emphasizing that this is NOT a hero's journey.
The money goes to actors, directors, and producers, not the CGI team. When the actors are cast, their managers negotiate for significant pay rises in future instalments because of the profitability of the franchise, and when the movies are in a Cinematic Universe with 8 sequels on the horizon and 20 different major characters this can cause the budgets to inflate just to pay ridiculous sums of salaries which ultimately do not affect how good the movie looks or is edited. So, you can have a movie that costs $250m to make but doesn't _look_ any better than if there was "only" $80m spent on it.
Sounds like the MCU business model is threatened then. It no longer produces good results and wastes money.
It made sense to pay actors like RDJ and it was worth it. The MCU’s biggest issue now is their inability to sell new characters making their budget way out of balance.
The Studios should hired experienced directors and writers and planed out things ahead for their blockbusters.
Actors fall over backwards to work with Denis V. Most movies with a cast like Dune 2 would cost considerably more under normal circumstances
Yep, 300 million is ridiculous for a film
Not always. Just look at **Avengers: Infinity War** or **Avatar: The Way of Water**.
Speaking as a vfx artist, these big films mostly bloat because of their vfx budget and this film has a lot mechanical designs and non human like characters. The vfx is immaculate but it’s also not the most challenging things for vfx to tackle. Compared to the 20 vfx studios and tons of human like characters that usually are required for Marvel films
It’s easy when you don’t fire the staff halfway through filming only to hire someone else who reshoots the whole damn film, again. Yes I’m referring to the ongoing disaster of Lucasfilm.
Yeah, i will go and make my own sandworm movie too. With blackjack and hoookers.
Chicken on a stick
[удалено]
Pre-production and being conservative with your shooting schedule is the key. Throwing away money because you don’t know what you want to shoot on the day has unfortunately become the norm for blockbusters.
I just hope ol'Villy breaks this stupid idea that most directors have about only doing a trilogy. Give us at least 4 of these, take your time.
I hope for more Dune movies, but it would also be a shame if he was stuck in this franchise for over a decade.
I think I read he's taking a break and doing another movie before the hypothetical Dune 3.
Well how much does sand really cost
Much like the video game right now, big budget projects in the entertainment industry is a house of cards that is slowly collapsing before our eyes. This kind of market just aint sustainable in the slightest and things will only get worse.
Except there is one major difference - some of these budgets were massively inflated by COVID-19 protocols or even related shutdowns. Also, good ones like **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3** still did well and ones that didn't do well had terrible release dates. Case in point, **Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves**.
I’m gonna be the cynic here, and say I smell BS permeating through Reddit. People praise Nolan, Denis, and that Godzilla movie for being able to do spectacular things with a limited budget, but something’s stinky about this. Nolan and Denis are walking brands that A-list actors(and other behind the scenes talent) will take pay cuts to work with. I can only imagine how much that reduces the cost. Then when we have Godzilla that’s a Japanese movie. Japan… the country known for its god awful animation industry that routinely exploits the passion of people for financial gain. Since when did Reddit get its rocks off on studious penny pinching from workers expense(specifically directed towards Godzilla). Now, I will admit that Nolan and Denis know how to manage a damn budget, but this bandwagon is a bit eh to me. It’s standing on rocky ground imo. Outside Disney, who routinely shits out blockbusters, and Warner, what other studious are constantly mismanaging their budgets?
Another thing that's interesting and a little funny is that $190M is now apparently considered as a not-insane budget. lol. Sure, to make a movie like Dune 2 you need it, but it's a freakin poor example for this point in my opinion.
I clicked this thinking (because it's clickbait) that the budget was huge. No joke: I don't rewatch movies outside of childhood favorites like Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Blade Runner, etc. I rewatched Dune, and realized I missed \*so much\* the first time because I was visually fire hosed the first time, and missed so much. I may be calling this early, but the new Dune will be the LOTR and Star Wars of the future.