MovieChat Forums > Thirteen Days (2001) Discussion > Adjusted budget: 102 million dollars

Adjusted budget: 102 million dollars


How? how is this possible??? they construct another White House??? Kevin Costner was paid 30 million dollars to be in it?

Radiohead fan.... Official Jonas Brothers hater

reply

I'm with you - no idea how it could have cost that much...

------

Wait a minute... who am I here?

reply

Saw this on tv last night and I'm truly shocked now to hear it cost that much.

I mean, Costner was the main known name but his price tag wasn't the same as it was in his Waterworld and The Postman days. Everyone else is a mixture of "Hey it's that guy" and fairly unknown types. The stuff with planes and warships was impressive but I still can't imagine it eating up THAT much budget, not unless they were using unique footage each and every time which would be extremely wasteful.

Either which way, $80m seems staggering. Is that figure incorrect, or can anyone shine a light on this?

reply

I don't know about budgets and expenses in filmmaking, but imo, the look of this fil is excellent and it achieves the necessary period feel of the early 1960s. Watch the extras on the DVD where they explain how the film was made. It might make sense in terms of the budget.

reply

Especially CGI shots like the U-2 being shot down are extremely expensive depending on the complexity of the shot. I remeber that on a Stargate Atlantis DVD commentary mentioned that a 30 second space battle scene can cost almost 50 000$...

reply

Period dramas are always expensive & Costner got $15m so that only left $65m to make the rest of the movie & its loaded with talented actors. Most of the budget went on period/acting/shooting it looks like they probably shot a lot of footage (which also cost a lot then you have to pay the film crew extra on over time etc etc).

Easy to see this was an $80m movie in 2001

reply