Quote:
Originally Posted by american pervert
so how do the studios justify showing this movie at the same price as others???
this is why i feel no shame when it comes to watching bootlegged movies.
|
Whether a film cost $1 or $100M is irrelevant to the cost of your theater seat. Studios would love to charge based on the same business models as music concert, but then much less people would go out and see movies, so over the years everyone accepted the fact that movie tickets prices are uniform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davy
I have my doubts that it only cost $15,000.
- the guy renovated his house for the movie
- the camera he used is listed for $15,000 alone
- even if he got a used camera, it does not include equipment
- licenses for video editing software
- don't forget the actors
|
The original amount of money spent on making the film was around $12,000 (borrowed camera, renting of a few gears, and other expenses)
The actual cost of blowing the film, editing it, paying for the E&O and other licenses and fees to make it ready for theatrical release is closer to $200k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
Based on ROI probably. Based on actual profit no. Titanic cost $200 mil to make and made $1.8 BILLION worldwide.
|
People go see movies based on how much it cost and who is in it. Studio always inflate the budget of any given film, some will even cast a well known actor, put his name on the cover and let viewers discover that the well known actor only plays a couple of scenes.
Regardless, it costs almost 3 times as much to market a film than to make it. Still a pretty good investment in most cases.