It amazes me how Hollywood can bitch about anything.

[kierthos]

Okay, I can't see how an animated film would cost $100 million dollars to make, but I suspect there's some "Hollywood accounting" going on in there.

So yeah, "Cloudy with a chance of meatballs" apparently cost that much to produce, and in it's opening weekend, it made $30.1 million dollars. And that's only "so-so" numbers.

Wait, what?

It made back 30% of the entire production, development and advertising costs, plus whatever else the bill was padded with, in three days, and that's a "so-so" opening? Okay, sure, it could eat shit in the upcoming weeks, and end up being a loss on the total production costs, but damn, these are some whiny people in Hollywood.

"Wah, "The Informant" only made about 48% of it's production costs of $22 million dollats in it's opening weekend! Waaaaah!" (And see, I'm not saying Matt Damon isn't an A-list actor, but how in the fuck does a movie that actually stars real people end up costing one-fifth of the cost of an animated movie?)

Of course, "Jennifer's Body" had a poor opening weekend too, but that's not a big shock there.

Comments

[delwin.livejournal.com]

1) Good artists make a much as C list actors.
2) You need 100x the number of artists as you do actors.
3) computer time costs money in both power and hardware
4) It takes _days_ per minute of footage to render a film.

So... yea a fully animated film is amazingly expensive. Seen the budget on most video games these days? 99% of that is art.

[kierthos.livejournal.com]

Okay, see, that helps explain the cost. It still seems like the industry acts completely butt-hurt when a film doesn't make 1000% of it's cost in the opening weekend.