MovieChat Forums > Rambo III (1988) Discussion > Budget of $64 million? Where did all tha...

Budget of $64 million? Where did all that money go?


Okay, I know that Stallone was paid around $16 million, but that still leaves $48 million, so where did the rest go?

It's mostly shot in wide open, empty desert landscapes which are some of the cheapest areas to shoot a movie in. Sure, there's lots of explosions but it's not expensive to blow some old military vehicles up. There are no elaborate set pieces and most of the action scenes just consist or Stallone mowing down hundreds of generic bad guys, again not expensive to shoot.

Putting Stallone's salary aside, if I was told that this was shot on a $2 million budget then I'd have no trouble believing it. The only difference between this and a $1 million B-movie shot in Namibia is better cinematography.

Furthermore, there are no "name" actors in supporting roles, unless you count Richard Crenna but I highly doubt he was high rent at the time.

So where did all that money go? Were there major production difficulties? $64 million is still a lot of money for a movie even today, and in 2012 I'd still expect an action movie with that kind of budget to look a LOT better than this.

reply

[deleted]

Hmmm, I guess I'll need to have a look at the enemy base again because I don't remember much of it.

Points taken, but I don't agree that the number of huge explosions would be particularly costly. B-movies from the likes of PM Entertainment and NuImage from the mid 1990s have enormous amounts of *huge* explosions and vehicle stunts, and while the actual budgets of those movies have never been published to the best of my knowledge, I don't think any of them exceeded $3-4 million.

I also don't think that the climactic battle as very impressive looking, but it's a while since I've seen it.

I have since found out this which could explain a lot of it. I don't know how accurate it is but it's certainly interesting:

From the Internet Movie Firearms Database:
"This 1988 sequel is an unusual movie in that its production was halted about two thirds into the shooting schedule of the film. Rambo III was scheduled to film entirely in Israel (and Thailand for the first part of the film), and many scenes were filmed in Eilat (the southern most tip of Israel between Jordan and Egypt), using Israeli armorers. However, the spectacle of a major American movie being filmed in the middle east created a lot of concern about terrorist attacks (to disrupt the production and 'send a message of the U.S.'). Before production could be completed, it is said that Israel revoked the production's permission to remain in the country (the rumored reason being security concerns and threats made to the American film crew). Not wishing for a multi million dollar film to be scrapped, then California State Senator Pete Wilson (R) (a big proponent of the film industry in California and later Governor of the state), helped the production relocate back to Southern California and Arizona. The remaining shots were completed (including many insert shots) using the same talent, but utilizing areas around the American Western Desert, most notable Yuma, AZ for the final battle and Lone Pine, CA for 2nd unit photography. The sudden change from 'accurate Soviet weaponry' (provided by the Israeli armorers) to the typical 'faux' weaponry seen in many American movies, is explained by this sudden relocation back to the U.S.A. Thus we see mocked up Browning M2 .50 cal Machine guns instead of real Soviet DShK 12.7mm MGs, etc. Stembridge Gun Rentals took over the final shoot (back in the states).

Most notably, the armored vehicles at the final battle changed from the authentic and original Soviet armored vehicles from the middle of the film, to the modified American tanks. These were provided by Veluzat Armored Vehicles out of Newhall, California. Only aficionados of tanks would notice the change. "

reply

[deleted]

Thats awesome i never knew any of that.....

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Hair product?



Please do not make negative comments about a film YOU NEVER SAW. It makes you look stupid.

reply

No I think it was liquid tanner for Sly's abs and pecs. Doesn't that dude own a shirt?

reply

reply

The cost was due to the production. David Morrell, creator of Rambo, was sent by Playboy to cover the shooting of Rambo III. Morrell recently has had this to say about the production:

Although its theme was no longer ripped from the headlines, Rambo III attracted enthusiastic crowds. Its gross income was respectable even by today’s standards: $189 million. If that were the only factor, the film would be considered a box-office success. But the budget was $67 million. Preparing a profile for Playboy magazine, I spent a week on the Israel film set, near Eilat, and was amazed by the scope of the production. Hundreds of extras on camels stretched toward bluffs on the horizon as far as I could see. Numerous nationalities with different languages made coordination difficult, requiring lengthy preparations for each shot. Food providers needed to prepare several different sets of meals, paying careful attention to the separate religious/dietary requirements of Jews and Muslims. The desert heat was so strong that some members of the production crew had a full-time job just making sure that everyone always had water.

Considering all this, I’m surprised that the picture didn’t cost more than $67 million. Because theaters, distributors, and advertising expenses need to be paid, the point where profits begin is generally considered to be three or four times the shooting cost. So let’s say that the break-even point was $220 million. But the income was $189 million. Thus Rambo III often appears on lists of expensive films that lost money in spite of its respectable theatrical returns.

reply

[deleted]

...up in smoke!

reply

The original director was fired and according to the Trivia section there were three different DoPs over the course of production. This was clearly a troubled shoot. A lot of the action sequences involved helicopters, and depending on how much of a perfectionist the director was, those aerial shots may have been done quite a few times. That's never cheap. The same thing applies to the large crowd scenes. This was all pre-CGI, which means an epic battle needed a lot of co-ordination of real extras - and in this case the extras would have included a lot of professional stuntmen, rather than cheap aspiring actors who were lucky just to look the part.

======================================

If Rocky Balboa listened to Lady Gaga...is this the movie we'd get? http://youtu.be/o_tPQzEkqQo

reply

Cocaine. It's 87-88. Cocaine :p

reply

I recently saw an article on this movie from 88 and it said the budget was actually 32 million.

The 64 sum may be because of Stallone's paycheck which at that time was something like 20-25 million. Add that on to the budget (along with Crenna's salary) and that must be where the 64 million comes from.

This movie is deceptively huge, though. The action scenes at the enemy base and the valley at the end are pretty amazing in size. If you compare this to other action films at the time it dwarves them. I guess that's where all the money went if was indeed 64 million (but I doubt it - half probably went to Sly).

Motown, get your Detroit jukebox Jheri curl ass in this chickensh!t chop-chop! Asafp!

reply