I’m not a Thor fan, but I am a comic movie fan… and recently I’ve also become a big Matthew Vaughn fan (seriously folks, if you haven’t seen Stardust, and you still have to the opportunity to see it where you live… GET OUT AND SEE IT. One of the best films of the year), so I find myself more than interested in the Thor movie project.
For those of you who may not know (not that I’m an expert on it myself) quite often the process of making a movie goes something like this: First you get the script, and then once you have the script, the producer with give it to a Production Manager who will basically go over the script and tell you how much it will cost to make it into a movie as it is.
Well, Vaughn and his writer got finished with their script and sent it into the studio. The good news is that the studio LOVED the script. The bad news is that they told him as it is, the movie would cost $300 million to make in its current incarnation… and then proceeded to ask him to do another draft in such a way that it would take about $150 million out of it.
It’s yet another chapter in the “Creative vs Business” aspect of the movie world. But wow… I can only image what sort of stuff Vaughn put in that script that would have required $300 million to make it!
As a side note, I’m actually surprised the studio is giving this movie $150 million. That’s a LOT of money… as a matter of fact, that’s the same budget Transformers had… and Transformers are a much more marketable name. I think this speaks a lot to Marvels’ commitment to this movie.
Source: Cinematical
Re: ‘Stardust’…a delight in many ways…but the screenplay… Ugh. Not sure if it was because it was an adaptation…with all the inherent compromises…but as a story? It needed some major work. Whereas is *should* have had people lining up, should have had the same reaction as ‘The Princess Bride’.
Good cinematic storytelling. Not quite as easy as people seem to think.
Transformers only cost 150 million because Spielberg and Dream works got a discount from their buddie George Lucas. The movie should have cost way more than that.
First things first.
@Tripp:
Avengers gets talked about now and then; it would be an easier thing to work out than JLA. As for Invaders, I wouldn’t mind if there was a flick that focused on Union Jack, but since Cap and Sub Mariner are party to Invaders, it might be a little tricky.
******
Now, as regards to the script. I will say it is possible the budget was overestimated (it does happen sometimes) but, hey, cut in half with 150 to play with…and people bitch? Damn!
Make the adjustments, see what suits the story. If Beta Ray Bill was a character and not needed to the overall story—out he goes! If a fight between Thor and Fafnir The Dragon is in the script and really isn’t needed, hey, seeing it would be cool as hell, but so would seeing a film based off The Infinity Gauntlet, I’m sure. If it doesn’t serve the story—boot it back to Asgard!
The studio still wants the picture -committing 150 mil is serious to me.
Time to get ruthless, and start killing and/or amputating the children!
Save whatever beloved babies you can for the sequel should one arise.
And…someone out there loved Stardust, Mr. Vaughn. It was a wonderful film that got little support or notice…and a studio sees your name on Thor, and your previous film tanked…and still give you 150? Don’t bitch! Take it, it is a gift.
Now, kill the kids.
Note to Int’l friends: ‘killing one’s children/babies’ is a screenwriting and filmmaking metaphor for omitting ‘scenes you adore and love’. Just to put your minds at ease…
Here’s an idea, someone (intelligent) write a script for Marvel’s legendary titles of the 1970’s, “Tomb of Dracula”, sound like a plan? I kind of agree that Thor may have to little interest for the general public. Diehard marvel-ites would show up but anymore…not sure on that one unless they take soem liberties, which I would not want to see.
Are any plans afoot for an Avengers flick???? or, a period WWII film for The Invaders….something to mull over…
As a little piece of perspective: I believe the average cost of bringing a film to the cinemas…’all-in’…is around $100 million these days. Here’s a not-very-recent news item on the subject: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3564377.stm
It will cost this much because they have to spend half that money to figure out to make Thor’s dialog not sound cheesy.
“BY ODIN’S NAME I SHALL VANQUISH THEM!”
How do you work with that?
As I understood it, (but i am just a schmo who works in a uk school as an ICT assistant and not a Hollywood movie studio schmo) they always make the first script financially impossible to make so they can find out just how many explosions, stunts + effects they can get away with, then they cut out the really ridiculous stuff to bring the budget down to the target amount. Now maybe $300 Million is an unusually high shot, but it might not the that hard to cut it in half. Take out an unnecessary set piece, and a few crazy stunts and blow up a cheap car instead of a Ferrari and your quids in.
I can see that most of the money will be spent on special effects. I’d also like to see the script to see how the studio came up with 300mill.
Now we’re really at a point, where you seriously gotta ask yourself:
What the fuck do they waste all this cash on?
300 Mill? And the guy is more or less complaining that he has to cut it back to 150 Million? 150 million fucking dollars? Now that should really be more than enough to make a decent movie.
What has become so costly over the last five years that you can’t seem to make a blockbuster under the budget of 100 Million? Are the visual effects so expensive? What’s the difference to 10 years ago?
Uh, HOW? They made 300 for 65 million, for fuck’s sake.