|
|
|
|
|
|
by caconym_
1477 days ago
|
|
|
> Many of those most expensive films spent much of their budgets on major actors. That’s a function of Hollywood accounting where actors need to be paid upfront for the potential value of the income generated rather than paid based on how well a film does. A brief Google safari suggests that while this may sometimes be the case, it's far from universal, and can't really account for the overwhelming trend of recent films appearing on the list I posted. So where's the source? Where's the inflation-adjusted budget breakdown equivalent of what I posted? Relevant Wiki page with a handful of budget breakdowns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_budgeting |
|
|
The logic here is a little strange but it does explain why more recent movies especially sequels dominate that list. More recent films have larger audiences due to population growth and ticket prices have kept up with inflation. That means more recent films have a larger likely revenue stream especially sequels for popular movies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films EX: Ben-Hur the most expensive movie that had been made in 1959 at the equivalent of 158 million and pulled in the equivalent of 900 million would hardly worth mentioning as a major film today.
Actors/directors/screenwriters/music rights holders/etc are going to negotiate based on the potential revenues therefore the larger the potential revenue the more they want to be paid upfront.
Now, that doesn’t directly impact shooting or special effects budgets, but if you’re already spending 100+ million on the “Actors/directors/screenwriters/music rights holders/etc” then there is little reason to economize on the special effects budget. Trying to economize at that point is just not worth the risk especially when the budget is fixed before you start. Might as well keep things padded at that point.