Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco67
(Post 17685388)
There's a lot more that goes into making an action movie than the cost of the film. 10 million is cheap for a flick like 28 Days Later. They shot on recognizable deserted streets in London, there were lots of people to hire as zombies, lots of stuntwork, some CG effects, a well known director and star. You make no sense.
|
film can be a large part of the budget.
A 1,000 foot magazine (12 minutes) of 35mm film costs about $500. It cost another $100 or so to get it developed.
Once you get your 12 minutes of film back as a negative, it costs about $800 an hour to telecine it, which is to transfer it to digital or video so you can see or do anything with it.
so for every 12 MINUTES of film you are looking at 1,400 bucks just to get it developed and get it on video to even do a rough edit, that has nothing to do with the final color correction and mastering which can easily run 1,000 PER MINUTE.
Now lets talk about ratios. With a standard film going into theatrical release the ratio of film or video being expended can range from 5:1 to 20:1, so lets say 28 Days Later was shot on film at a 10:1 ratio and 90 minutes long = 900 minutes / 12 = 75 1,000 foot rolls of film X 1,400 dollars = 105,000 dollars just to get the film,develop it and put it on video to do a raw edit.
Figure another 50k for the editor and another 100k for the color correction and master...
So you are easily over 250,000 dollars for the film alone, not counting the cameras, crew etc you need when you are shooting on film...totally different animal.
Shooting on top of the line HD video? Practically free in comparison.
that being said cgi is cheap, i refer you now to "Monsters" which was just made for 15 thousand dollars loaded with amazing cgi of devasted towns, creatures etc.
but yes you have danny boyle and that actor so where does the money go;)
10 million was a joke for that movie.