MovieChat Forums > My Blueberry Nights (2007) Discussion > IMDB reported budget of $10m

IMDB reported budget of $10m

posted 17 years ago by Voodoo10
10 replies | jump to latest

This film had virtually no set costs (a diner, a bar and a poker table), a rented Jaguar and a few blueberry pies, a steak and 1/2 order mash potatoes and 1/2 order fries (or something like that). Looked like average quality digital and very little lighting costs. My wife and I thought that this was a clever way to do a film...very few sets, a few name recognition actors who will do it on the cheap and take a piece of the partnership (should it make money), and of course, use of a digital camera and a low budget lighting set. Then I see that IMDB shows an estimated budget of $10m. I am shocked. So where are the costs? Natalie Portman (this part could have been played on a pro-bono basis by any ESPN poker student); Norah Jones (very little marquee value); Jude Law (could have been played by any college theatre student with or without shaving gear). There is no way this film should have cost more than $750,000 (assuming a budget of $250,00 on actors). It's show business! If they spend $10m, they need to get at least $25m at the box office, and hope for oher dvd and licensing revenues in the US and international markets. From the looks of it, this film with struggle to get a few million at the box. Does anyone have any thoughts about this. What is going to carry the day for this movie?

[–] sherylheartjude 17 years ago

Well, from what I see, the movie has so far made a little over 17 million worldwide with 5 countries still scheduled for release, while continuing to make a few more bucks in the countries in which it's currently showing. So it may get to at least 20 million, which is about the same figure earned on 2046, currently WKW's highest grossing film.

You're supposed to be the leading lady in your own life, for God's sake!

[–] Voodoo10 17 years ago

Sherylheartjude, thanks for the reply. What is the source of your figures? Thanks

[–] sherylheartjude 17 years ago

You're welcome. I got them at Box Office Mojo.

You're supposed to be the leading lady in your own life, for God's sake!

[–] Voodoo10 17 years ago

Sherylheartjude - Very resourceful on your part. Great website - thank you for the referral.

[–] axiomattic 17 years ago

TheisticExistentialist your view is simplistic and you and your wife are forgetting vital aspects of what needs to be paid for in order to bring a director's vision to the screen. First a Wong Kar Wai film will never have a low budget lighting set. And you can forget about the use of digital cameras. Wong Kar Wai doesnt only use film, he processes it in specific ways to give his images a different feel.

If you have seen his chinese films, you can realize that his films are based on the graphic design first (which can cost a lot when you are constantly trying to control every aspect of the foreground and the background of the image, things that the general public doesnt give a crap about)but also on major performances by his actors. This can not be achieved by an ESPN poker student. If you think it can, then you are missing MANY THINGS about what makes an actor performance valuable (and no i'm not talking about Nicolas Cage in Con Air sorry)...

Last thing ! You don't need to worry about "what is going to carry the day" for a film from Wong Kar Wai ! His repeated presence to the Cannes Festival and his worlwide reputation makes him a solid investment for any producer. If you want to look down on the production of a movie I'd recommend watching "TAPE" from Richard Linklater. This is low-budget digital filmmaking at its best with low budget lighting on only 1 set.

[–] Voodoo10 17 years ago

Axiomattic - I appreciate your input. I admit my view/comments were simplistic -- my bad. I have not seen a WKW film before this.

On a side note, specific to the role played Natalie Portman, and her 10-15 minutes on screen. My comment about using an ESPN poker student to play the role was really pointed at the cost aspect of the film. Does the film really need an A list actress to play a poker player for 10-15 minutes? I did not believe there was anything special about her performance. To this end, I felt that the cost could have been eliminated through use of a no-name actor to play the part (unless there is convincing empirical data to suggest that Natalie's role in the film will draw enough at the box-office to more than offset her compensation).

To digress, my initial interest was in trying to understand how this film cost $10m (assuming the imdb estimate is reasonable), given very few sets. Perhaps much is the above-the-line actor cost, perhaps not. You commented about the graphic design costs and WKW's attention to detail. Can you elaborate, for my benefit, on why, in this particular film, the graphic design costs might be so high? Again, I'm just trying to understand. Thanks for your help and any commentary you might have.

[–] thehardgoodbye 17 years ago

To consider the simple financial pros and cons of hiring Natalie Portman is odd, and a little crass from an artistic standpoint. Wong casts who he thinks fits the role he has created.

If we look at his Hong Kong films, he uses huge name actors and actresses in films that have very low budgets and make very little of those budgets back.

People just want to work with Wong Kar-wai. He's a talented guy, and this is probably the only time many American and British actors will have a chance to work with him, apart from Clive Owen & Co. on The Follow.

"These are the bad days, the all or nothing days. They're back!"
Marv- Sin City

[–] Bridesheadd 17 years ago

Crass, on an IMDb board? I'm shocked.

[–] ShotsWereFired 17 years ago

take into account what the city of new york charges for length of filming, the salaries of the crews, post-production work, and other little costs.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]