MovieChat Forums > Gojira -1.0 (2023) Discussion > $15 million budget?!

$15 million budget?!

posted a year ago by PrimeMinisterX (8859)
25 replies | jump to latest

Multiple sources are reporting that this film only had a budget of $15 million. I saw the film yesterday and loved it and am astounded that it only cost $15 million to make. It's scope and scale, and amount of effects, would seem to preclude a budget anywhere close to this low. I feel like if Hollywood made this very same film it would cost $90 million.

If it's possible to make a movie like this on such a small budget I'm surprised we don't see more independent low-budget, high-concept action movies.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15321) a year ago

It's nice to see filmmakers/studios show others that it can be done. This, Scream V and VI, Evil Dead Rise, Insidious: The Red Door, all show that low-budget franchise movies can look good and do well.

[–] jk90us (8287) a year ago

Yet none of the films you mention were any good. Godzilla is.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15321) a year ago

I liked the Scream movies and EDR (yet to watch ITRD). But that wasn't the point of what I was saying.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

That dudes an absolute pillock. Pay no heed to him.

There are many examples of horror movies this past year or so being made on minor budgets and making a lot of money. When you realize you could make six horror movies for less than half the cost of one mega budget movie like Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny it's crazy.

6 movie sample below.
Total budget - $130 million.
Total gross - $1.2 billion.

The Nun II;
Budget - $38 million
WW gross - $268 million

Five Night's at Freddys;
Budget - $20 million
WW gross - $299 million

Saw X;
Budget - $13 million
WW gross - £106 million

M3gan;
Budget - $12 million
WW gross - $181 million

The Exorcist: Believer;
Budget - $30 million
WW gross - $135 million

Smile;
Budget - $17 million
WW gross - $217 million

[–] DoctorThirteen (15321) a year ago

Those are some crazy returns. I didn't actually know The Nun II had done that well (someone bought it for me the other day - I haven't got round to watching it yet).

[–] jk90us (8287) a year ago

Pay no heed to him.

Fuck you too.

There are many examples of horror movies this past year or so being made on minor budgets and making a lot of money.

Right. I didn’t dispute that. My comment was about quality. Revenue doesn’t — nor has it ever— determine quality.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) a year ago

One thing I noticed there is that every film you mentioned is a horror movie. I think that horror has had a long track-record and tradition of turning out films on a low-budget. I think Ouija was made on only $5 million and grossed over $100 million, for instance.

It seems to be the action genre in particular that just can't seem to figure out the formula for making GOOD movies on a relatively low-budget. There are certainly many BAD low-budget action movies but not many good ones. In fact, the only other example that I can come up with is Underworld, which was made for $20 million, and of course if we adjust that for inflation it would be considerably more in today's money.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15321) a year ago

Yes, it's true that horror has managed it for a while, certainly helped by the fact that people will turn out for horror simply if it looks interesting; it doesn't need A-list names, bloated budgets and bloated runtimes (The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity showed that - bare minimum budgets and NO known actors).

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) a year ago

Yes, horror fans seem to be willing to go see just about anything. Though occasionally there are baffling exceptions.

I'm struggling to come with an example at the moment but I know there have been times where a horror film I actually liked--it's far from my favorite genre--did poorly at the box office and I was like, "Wait, horror fans, so you will come to support THAT piece of shit but you won't show up to support this movie that is actually good?"

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Horror is the master genre.

Shit like The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity can make hundreds of millions just because "it's scary". No stars, dogshit photography and editing, no sound track, no gore or nudity. Just some jumpscares, a bit of a marketing push and some luck.

Horror fans are diehards. There are many people out there that like horror so much it's a major part of their personal identity. You also get that with mega franchises like Star Wars or Marvel but horror fans are just built different. It's the entire genre they adore.

It's the reason why 'a man in mask stabbing people' franchises have upwards of 10 entries. They're cheap to make and horror fans gobble it up regardless of how ridiculous, convoluted and shit it becomes.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) a year ago

It's definitely an anomaly and special case-study in the world of film. I agree that, as you say, horror fans are "built different." They are a special breed and will consume anything that gets out before them.

I am somewhat like that for action films, but even I have a limit and avoid a lot of the straight-to-video low-budget stuff (though not all of it!).

Horror is definitely special and unique in its ability to turn out solid quality examples in its genre on relatively small budgets, as well as its ability to take low-budget films at make multiples of the budget back at the box office. I feel like I've seen so many examples of this over the years.

[–] Pete314 (3342) a year ago

Less corrupt and greedy mouths to feed in Japan than in the US?
Remember that India realized a full Mars mission for 74 million USD. That's pre-planning costs at NASA...

[–] DoctorThirteen (15321) a year ago

'India realized a full Mars mission for 74 million USD. That's pre-planning costs at NASA...'

Wow.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) a year ago

I think money for "names" definitely has a lot to do with it but even when it's a movie with unknowns Hollywood still seems to have inability to keeps costs low when effects and set pieces are involved.

It does make me wonder how much the cast of Godzilla made, and also what the working conditions were for the effects artists. After all, we know that Japanese companies have a reputation for grinding their employees into powder.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15321) a year ago

As a horror fan I actually prefer horror films that don't have 'name' actors. Seeing a well-known star in that type of movie tends to pull me out of it a bit. An exception was Daniel Radcliffe in The Woman in Black (which did very well - largely due to Radcliffe being willing to lower his fee by a considerable amount).

[–] Satan2016 (26217) a year ago

That's just production, 3 months of filming. Post production took longer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla_Minus_One#Filming

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) a year ago

From everything I have read, the total budget for the film is $15 million.

[–] CraigJamesReview (1820) a year ago

And if Hollywood made it it would be one mindless explosion and piece of destruction after another. With this, it really focuses on what Godzilla can do and what he can unleash and its a marvel.

If anyone's interested, I reviewed the movie on my youtube channel. Appreciate any feedback. Trying to improve -https://youtu.be/XxOgmeRRWKc

[–] [deleted] a year ago

[deleted]

[–] FilmBuff (7437) a year ago

For starters, I don't believe the budgets most studios announce are accurate. If they say they spent $250 million on a film, it's more likely that they spent $50-75 million on the film. The rest is either spent on other things (meals, cars, hookers, drugs, real estate) and included through deceptive accounting, or simply fabricated to lower the studio's tax bill.

To that I'll add that for as much as an improvement as this film is over the Godzilla films of the past, Godzilla still didn't look nearly as real as he does in the American films. It's clear Toho's CGI, either because of budget or because Toho wanted to retain some of the "man in a suit" aesthetic, is significantly less realistic.

Finally, I don't think Toho has to deal with unions. They add massive costs, and benefit no one but those at the top, contrary to why they were created in the first place.

[–] BKB (11325) a year ago

It's nice to see this actually has a theatre run and not gone straight to Apple TV or some other Streaming Platform

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) a year ago

It definitely seems like a bold move to give such a wide release to a foreign-language film. The only other times I can remember that happening are Crouching Tiger and Parasite.

[–] david80848688 (331) a year ago

It's subtitled, right? I like subtitles.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8859) a year ago

Yes. It's in Japanese with English subtitles.