Yeah, I don't think anyone is disputing that there was probably an extra 30 million spent on P&A, which means prints and advertising. Prints being the film being sent out, therefore...yeah, that's not part of the production budget.

Actual production on this film seems to be...around 40 million dollars or so.

Of course, it still didn't do that great, box office wise, but it's far from a major bomb.

I for one enjoyed the hell out of it. But I can also recognize it's a fairly simple story, and is rather odd in its design aesthetics that probably turns some people off.

I think I should also note, it's not just the movie, but the actors too. Jude Law is proving to not be a viable box office star, as seemingly none of the films he's starring in really seem to be hitting. Starpower goes a long way when dealing with box office receipts, and Jude Law doesn't seem to really have any drawing power off his name alone. The same could be said about Gwyneth and Jolie who, despite being famous, hardly seem to equate to box office.

great info guys...didn't think this thread would show this much life...I enjoyed the charachter of sky captain...and it looked diffrent...I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel.

thanks again

gawd, marketing budgets right now are horribly inflated

1. The studio has to make over 3000+ prints for the film.
2. The studio has to promote the film on television (network and cable).
3. The studio has to promote the film on the radio.
4. The studio has to promote the film on the internet.
5. The studio has to promote the film in cities (via billboards, buses, etc).

And so on and so on... I could be here for a day, but you get the general idea of things...

Just to preface. I know nothing about how much CG costs but how can this film, with the actors involved and the extensive CG cost that much less then an animated CG film? The animated CG budgets run around $70mil and upwards.

I think these questions has been answered already in this thread.

The upcoming MIRRORMASK, which is also CG-heavy, cost 4 mil to produce.

It's all in who you hire to do the work. Want ILM? You have to pay for it. Pixar too.

I'm much more inclined to believe Conran than IMDB, which has about as much credibility as AICN.

I still consider that production costs, unless a filmmaker intentionally decides to cut his own throat by only releasing the film in digital theaters. You have to factor that in production costs because you have no choice but to make film prints. I understand what you're saying, and technically you're right. But the realization is at the end of the day, you have to use film, until digital theaters become more prevalent.

Never said otherwise, I'm just more inclined to believe their numbers than the numbers thrown around here.

Thanks for the info, although I would have liked a number. Far below could mean 60 million for all we know. 10 million could still be considered far below.

I've never understood this playing with film production costs. Just tell us how much the fucking thing cost.

That's funny, since the numbers thrown around here are BOM.com's numbers.

Not with regards to this particular thread and topic.

While you may consider that production costs, pretty much anytime you look at a budgeted figure anywhere, it's not taking P&A into account. If you're determined, as you seem to be, to consider Sky Captain a $70 million movie, then you're not going to be using an apples-to-apples comparison with other movie budgets if indeed that number is overinflated.

"The filmmaker" doesn't distribute the movie and probably has very little say in the matter.

I liked Sky Captain at my old age, but I would have loved it had I seen it when I was about eleven years old and in the fifth grade back in 1987. I have the feeling that had this movie come out in the fall of 1987 than the fall of 2004, and been exactly the same movie we saw, it would have done better.

Yeah, it doesn't make a lick of sense to include prints into the production budget. No studio or website does that. Ever. You'd have to include advertising into the production budget also. Basically, if you do that, then Sky Captain is a 70 million dollar movie, but Spiderman 2 would be a 300 million dollar movie and Van Helsing would be something like a 250 million dollar movie.

Basically, nobody in the industry, ever, places prints in the production budget. Go through box office mojo and not one of those production budgets includes prints. That's why they have a separate category, P&A.

And why don't they release an exact figure? Because, well, what do they care what you know. If you try and find an exact figure of how much Van Helsing, Riddick, Catwoman, or myriads of other films you'll find that you'll get conflicting numbers across the board. I can understand the logic in propping up a film as having a big budget or downplaying how much something cost when it bombs, but studios have no real reason to do exact accounting and release it to the public. Considering the nature of these productions encompassing so many different facets and employees and things to pay for, I doubt there's one movie out there that tells us exactly how much it cost to make. They're all, usually, somewhat ballpark figures.

Is there anywhere you can look up and see how it's DVD sales went on Tuesday?

You might, but no one else does. That's because the distribution process has so many variables. Platform release, limited release, 3,000 screens, 6,000 screens, type and quantity of advertising, marketing tie-ins and partners. But the production cost (sometimes refered to as the negative cost, because it pays for everything up to the finished, edited negative) is a little more uniform from one movie to the next.

Saw this on DVD yesterday. Yuck. Nice looking, but awful acting and an incredibly boring script. About half way through it reminded me of "Tomb Raider" in it's stinkiness and then lo and behold there's Lara Croft with a British accent. How appropriate.

No part two please.

haven't seen anything yet...it will show up in Entertainment weekly next issure though...rental market and retail sales

Interesting you should say that - while sitting in the theater watching it, I thought pretty much the same thing. I thought "If this was 1977, this would be Star Wars. This would be HUGE. But here we are in 2004, and the moviegoing public is so critical and so jaded that it barely registers a blip in its consciousness."

Why did I think those things? Because it took me right back to how I felt in 1977 seeing Star Wars for the first time.

This tanked on DVD.

Numbers?

#2 & #20 for sales, #5 rentals for about $6.5 million rental revenues.

Agreed.

where does a person go to find revenue figures for dvd sales/rentals?

too bad this movie didnt do well in dvd sales. I really liked it because it was so stylish but i can definitely understand why a lot of people didnt like it due to the cinematography

#2 in sales, huh?

It's like HEAVEN'S GATE all over again.

It's funny you should say that because for some reason it sort of reminded me of Tomb Raider as well. And I can't even remember the plot of Tomb Raider.