$75 million budget?????

Yes!! I just came across this and was coming here to ask this. There is no reason for this movie to have cost 75 million other than Apatow demanding his wife and friends get paid WAY more than they have any business being paid, and because of Apatow, Sandler, and Rogen's track record they gave it to him. Whether or not you like this movie you have to agree a 75 million dollar budget is ridiculous for this type of movie.

Just as a reference This is 40 only cost 35 million and made roughly the same at the box office as Funny People, which was a 40 million dollar profit instead of losing a few million like Funny People. Atleast the studio learned their lesson. Can't blame Apatow though I, and everyone here, would've done the same thing if they were willing to pay it.

Sandler I'd say got the biggest chunk of it.

Sandler makes 20 million per movie... Take that out, you're at 55 million which is not bad considering the use of the mansion, getting celebs to pop in, and this is the only Apatow movie with strong direction, lighting, and cinematography. Rather than let the camera roll and improv, there is a lot more precise movement. That costs money.



Shaka Da Gnu

$5-10 million probably went to Apatow, $20 million to Sandler, maybe another $5 million to Rogen, $10-15 million to the rest of the star-studded cast, a lot of money for the amount they spent on film they shot on which was probably days and days worth of footage, pay the production crew and post-production companies for CGI and stuff, plus more because they shot in L.A. instead of a state that offers tax rebates. Probably around $60-70 million, yeah.




"Oh, my God. Bear is driving! How can that be?!"

Dont forget two certain child actresses he hired.

On the commentary, Apatow says something like "the shooting ratio was 400:1" and it was shot on film. That alone is expensive as hell.

[deleted]

There are a LOT of cameos.