$120,000,000 budget?????


One hundred and twenty million dollars to make this????

It must be $100 million in salaries and $20 million in production costs. I doubt production costs would be that high... James L. Brooks writes for the small screen... Taxi... Mary Tyler Moore. This could have been done as a Broadway play with the limited number of sets it had.

Then I read that Hollywood is upset because Congress is dragging its feet on the Net Censorship Bill, Hollywood claiming that downloading is cutting into profits.

There's robbery going on all right, but it's happening long before a movie is released, not at the torrent sites.


reply

Seriously, they were never going to make that back, Brooks seems like he will never have another hit again.



reply

James L. Brooks has always been insane.
Just look at how much his movies cost:

Terms of Endearment (1983) - $8 mill.
Broadcast News (1987) - $20 mill.
I'll Do Anything (1994) - $44 mill.
As Good as It Gets (1997) - $50 mill.
Spanglish (2004) - $80 mill.
How Do You Know (2010) - $120 mill.

now the only failry cheap one (though still big at it's time) was Terms of Endearment. The rest was rather expensive. Though he did get major hits with Terms of Endearment, Broadcast News and As Good as It Gets.
I'll Do Anything, Spanglish and How Do You Know was major flops.

- 40°04'56''N 86°33'47''W
I shoot when I see the whites of the eyes.

reply

thats insane , most of them are romantic comedies , how can you think a rom com is supposed to make money , it must have gone into salary , but the only characters that could be deemed a list at this time , is jack nicholson , paul rudd and reese but their was not alot of promotion for this film , i found it just cuz of the cast i saw in the synopsis , maybe is like the producers you make more from a flop than a hit . lol

reply

This movie was pretty awful. Reese...I just...uhh. Also Owen Wilson...no more! I find the two of them extremely annoying. This movie was god awful. I'LL DO ANYTHING cost so much because it was a romantic comedy/movie MUSICAL. Musical numbers were written and shot, but deleted so that lost a ton. What was in this boring made for tv style film that would cost so much?

reply

That's what I was thinking, what could possibly have made this film cost that much? I mean I know Reese gets top dollar but even if you factor in the high salary $120,000,000 sounds way too high.

reply

It has racked up 48 million in revenue, almost half way to paying for itself!

reply

/\ But the studios get half and theaters get the other half, so...

reply

The theatres get less than 10% of the ticket price for the first 2 weeks of a movies run. That figure increases the longer the movie plays.

reply

From The Hollywood Reporter:

THR has learned that the film, which centers on a love triangle, cost $120 million to make, though the studio drove that down to about $100 million thanks to tax rebates from Pennsylvania and D.C. One reason for the price tag is old-fashioned salaries for the pic's talent: Reese Witherspoon ($15 million), Jack Nicholson ($12 million), Owen Wilson ($10 million) and Paul Rudd ($3 million) received their quotes, and Brooks will earn about $10 million plus backend for writing, producing and directing. That's about $50 million for the major talent alone.

The cost also was high because of the time Brooks devoted to production and postproduction and his decision to reshoot the beginning and end of the movie. "He's slow and meticulous," a person familiar with the production says.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/price-tag-120-million-50-58410

Doesn't bother me that it didn't make its money back. The script seemed half-done and it had nothing I hadn't seen in a hundred other romantic comedies. They thought they could sell anything if they cast a couple of stars.
Also strange how no one in Hollywood notices that Reese Witherspoon isn't worth her high salary. She's not that well-known compared to other actresses playing in that league. Asides from "Legally Blonde", which would have been equally successful with Anna Faris or another similar actress, and "Sweet Home Alabama", which did quite well, none of her films were successful, and she's on that Forbes List of the most overpaid actors.

reply

People notice, believe me. This film is a big black eye for everyone involved. The only one who came out unscathed, I believe, is Paul Rudd who gave it all despite lame costars and a horrendous script. It doesn't hurt that his salary, although exorbitant to you and me, was at least a fraction of everyone else's. Jack Nicholson was playing a character he cobbled together from other films, as was Owen Wildon. Reese Witherspoon was doing her Helen Hunt impression which was flat and emotionless, just awful. Jack don't care. He was only supporting here and can do that again as long as he doesn't demand top pay. Owen can bounce back too. He's not a serious lead, despite Midnight in Paris. This movie proved that limitation.

There is not a chance in hell that Reese Witherspoon can ask for this amount of money ever again. Or, more correctly, receive this amount of money. This fim and This Means War (for which she earned waaaay less than HDYK) is the reason she is scrambling to make her own films. She has become an untouchable for any films outside the CAA umbrella and even most of them.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

reply

How much did she get for This Means War?

'Whatever happened to baby Jane?'

reply

I can hardly believe it but she got $12M for TMW. Pine, on the other hand got $5M. I'm sure Tom Hardy got about the same as Pine. Don't know.

You know how to hammer the nails into your coffin in H'wood? Keep demanding top dollar and producing crap.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

reply

Do you think she got the $12m before HDYK bombed?

'Whatever happened to baby Jane?'

reply

It's possible that the contract was drawn up beforehand, Sandra2. I know that with the pedigrees of the people, particularly the script writer and the director, HDYK was thought to be a sure fire hit.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

reply

Wow. But you know what. It's probably nice the money is going to the talent and not just the studio for a change.

reply

The extremely high budget is as stupid as the stupidity that it was put in this void movie.

If the number is correct, if they actually spent that ridiculously big amount for this screenplay, then there's something wrong with them.
There are countless good screenplays circulating in Hollywood every day, and they'll never be made into movies. And yet, some idiots give this budget to mediocre directors (yes, I'm referring to James L. Brooks) and mediocre actors (yes, I'm referring to Paul Rudd, Reese Witherspoon and Owen Wilson. Jack did it for all times sake) because they're NAMES.

Reese Witherspoon makes Meg Ryan look like Ingrid Bergman.

reply

To be fair, the movie wasn't originally budgeted at that obscene cost.

The budget was a result of cost overruns like reshoots, rewrites and newer and newer edits.

The original price tag already for this movie must have been too high for a dramedy with no f/x and major locations but this ridiculous.

Ribbons and detours meant nothing to me
Swaying our sympathies, pulling our strings...

reply

[deleted]

Once again, a notable and iconic actor is possibly ending his career due to being offered parts in hokey films like this. First it was Connery, then it was Hackmen, and now it's happened to Nicholson.

Jack Nicholson was originally not supposed to be in How Do You Know. Bill Murray had initially been cast in the role yet backed out. Nicholson then signed on to make this movie as a favor to his longtime friend & director James L Brooks.

reply

I suppose most of it went to Jack Nicholson

reply

[deleted]