A drama costs 100m budget?
How is it possible?
sharePretty big ensemble cast, location shooting, and Nolan's emphasis on practical effects probably added to the budget.
shareThe question become: how dumb a studio can be to agree spend 100m on a drama?
shareWell, they're probably banking on the name recognition and that Christopher Nolan is directing it. He's only had one major box office flop in his career.
sharePeople are hungry for decent movies after decades of CGI shit. Success of Joker (2019) proved that.
shareJoker isn't a drama, it's a superhero movie. And superhero movies have good track record on boxoffice.
shareWhere/who was the superhero in Joker? I think Joker was a character driven drama, but that besides the point. It wasn't fast paced CGI shit.
shareYou don't need CGI to be a superhero(or supervillain) movie. CGI is not a definition to superhero movies.
And the movie for Joker to plagiarize The King of The Comedy is a better movie than boring Joker, yet it bombed. Do you know why? Because it's a character driven drama without a superhero.
Hah, comparing to a movie made in the 80's. It was a different era, no CGI crap fests dominating theaters then. Reasons why The King of Comedy wasn't a success are therefore different also. I have nothing else to say about this matter, so I think I'll just stop here. Oh, you should check movies like Gone with the Wind or Titanic if you want to see succesful historical dramas.
shareDo you want people to believe if we change the title Joker to The King of Comedy, it will be the same success?
It's not hard to change the title, just need few dialogues change too, like: Wayne, Gotham, Joker.
Dumb enough to gross $622 million (and climbing ) on a $100 million budget.
Their render farm was costly due to mining surges.
shareThey had to buy the secret plans for American A-bombs from Russia!
shareI'm guessing there are some pretty big explosions, and expensive secret labs.
shareYoutube has limitless nuclear explosion videos for FREE! And it's REAL, no matter how hard this movie try, it can't beat real nuclear explosion!
shareOr you can check out Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie.
shareMostly 16mm film from the '50s and '60s. No way it would match current film or digital video.
shareLooks like Noland decided to finally spend some money on proper microphones for the film - hence the increased budget - lol
shareLMAO, it's a good joke, I actually laugh.
He has a trend started with TDRK, Interstellar, Dunkirk, Tenet. Consecutive four movies have We Can't Hear the Dialogues Problem. I wonder will Oppenheimer has the same problem?
I wish it were just a problem with Nolan movies. It's spreading!
shareWhat? Which movies have the same problem?
shareI frequently watch movies on TCM that are eighty to ninety years old or more, and if they're in good condition the dialogue is easy to understand without even trying. Apparently they had achieved the zenith of dialogue recording technology in 1931, but have lost it the past couple of decades. F'ing Vitaphone was actually better than whatever they use now.
shareSo true! It's not a technology issue, it's just become an artistic choice to have most of the audience saying "What? What did he say?" 😂
I don't know about Vitaphone, but vintage gear is highly sought after in the music production world because of the unique (and awesome!) sound of so many older pieces. But most record producers aren't going to track a top singer like Adele through a $250k signal chain, and then cover it up with weird noises at mixdown. That's what some of these movies feel like sometimes.
Several sources have been reporting that the original budget was 100M... but ballooned to 180M
It's true that a drachma costs much less than a talent.
share