#2151
Posted: 2/15/14 at 11:35am
According to Wikipedia (I know, I know, horrible source), the budget is 90 million. I know that site is dubious at best, but that number had to come from somewhere..
Into the Woods Official Movie Thread — Page 87
#2152
Posted: 2/15/14 at 11:47am
best12bars hit it right on the head. $40 million is miniscule compared to what it probably should be. SWEENEY TODD cost $50 million I believe, and that was a movie with a small cast, a small story, and hardly any SFX (of course the exception being that ridiculous blood and the opening sequence).
For a Fantasy Musical, it should be at least $150 million. I understand they wanna play it safe, but a small budget can easily sink a great project. Sure, the story and music is amazing, and the cast will probably blast it out of the water...but audiences want a spectacle with their magic.
For a Fantasy Musical, it should be at least $150 million. I understand they wanna play it safe, but a small budget can easily sink a great project. Sure, the story and music is amazing, and the cast will probably blast it out of the water...but audiences want a spectacle with their magic.
"Life in theater is give and take...but you need to be ready to give more then you take..."
#2153
Posted: 2/15/14 at 11:49am
It's just odd and annoying to me that Disney, the very same studio that went overboard with Oz and Wonderland, is now offering one-fifth of their Oz budget for Into the Woods.
Not half, not a third ... one-fifth.
EDIT: I just hope it doesn't look (technically) like a TV cable movie.
Not half, not a third ... one-fifth.
EDIT: I just hope it doesn't look (technically) like a TV cable movie.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 2/15/14 at 11:49 AM
#2154
Posted: 2/15/14 at 12:29pm
There's no way $40m is the true number... I'd believe closer to Wiki's $90m guesstimate.
#2155
Posted: 2/15/14 at 1:33pm
Yeah, I'm thinking that there is pretty much no way this was a $40 million movie. If you think that this is something that doesn't call for that much money, you know little about the costs of studio moviemaking today. The fact that LES MISERABLES (a movie that didn't call for magic or fantastical sets, etc) cost $60 mil should tell you something, and I actually thought there was something cheap and a little sloppy about that film, especially the production design. I certainly hope INTO THE WOODS looks much more sophisticated than that.
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
#2156
Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:02pm
Okay I'm going to play Devi's Advocate here. Where exactly in INTO THE WOODS are there magical and fantastic sets? The stage show, at least takes place in the woods and in a couple of cottages, and a castle. Most of it is awfully simple and to me seems a question of demanding exceptional cinematography and art direction.
I get the pondry of effects like the birds, the beanstalk and the giant -- but in a digital CGI landscape these are very easy things to accomplish. They in themselves would not necessitate this being a 90 million dollar film.
To me the expense in the movie would be the star salaries, but my hunch is that there were other stars besides Depp who took concessions in their pay in order to be a part of the film.
I get the pondry of effects like the birds, the beanstalk and the giant -- but in a digital CGI landscape these are very easy things to accomplish. They in themselves would not necessitate this being a 90 million dollar film.
To me the expense in the movie would be the star salaries, but my hunch is that there were other stars besides Depp who took concessions in their pay in order to be a part of the film.
#2157
Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:07pm
but in a digital CGI landscape these are very easy things to accomplish.
Yes, they are very easy to accomplish ... badly.
If you want it to look like a TV movie, great. If you want a real "wow" factor, you have to pay for it.
(... says someone who worked in digital post-production for over a decade.)
Yes, they are very easy to accomplish ... badly.
If you want it to look like a TV movie, great. If you want a real "wow" factor, you have to pay for it.
(... says someone who worked in digital post-production for over a decade.)
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#2158
Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:07pm
this is probably more of a general question with music... but how much is usually given on a movie for music... and i'm going to assume a movie such as this is going to want a large orchestra... i'm quite ignorant with this so is it a several million to pay for a studio, orchestra, etc?
#2159
Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:12pm
Well, I am someone that things most CGI looks "bad" when there is too much of it, so I'm hoping INTO THE WOODS doesn't rely heavily on it.
To put it in perspective, I would say in terms of production size, period details , and amount of special effects, WOODS could be similar to something like the recent release WINTERS TALE, which WB made for $46 million (down from an announced budget of $75 million).
I bet when its all said and done, WOODS costs less than $55 million.
To put it in perspective, I would say in terms of production size, period details , and amount of special effects, WOODS could be similar to something like the recent release WINTERS TALE, which WB made for $46 million (down from an announced budget of $75 million).
I bet when its all said and done, WOODS costs less than $55 million.
#2160
Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:15pm
The $40 million figure seems dubious. Especially since the costs are being absorbed by both Disney and Warner Bros. You don't bring in another studio to share costs and potential profits unless the budget is huge. Perhaps, Disney put in $40 million and Warner Bros. put in another $40 million but even $80 million seems low for a film like INTO THE WOODS unless those were the actual shooting costs and post production will add another $20 million. Something stinks in Burbank!!!!
#2161
Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:21pm
When studios are cutting back and insisting that VERY heavy CGI movies like GRAVITY, 300, and POMPEII be made for less than 100 million, I can't imagine any studio would green light an 80 million dollar INTO THE WOODS.
But the truth is this is Disney so we will never know the exact amount they put into it, but I doubt they'll release something that looks cheap.
But the truth is this is Disney so we will never know the exact amount they put into it, but I doubt they'll release something that looks cheap.
#2162
Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:24pm
^ All of that sounds more realistic, MB, but that's still an addition $15 million.
I'll take $55 million total! I could see that working. (And I'm in agreement about the sets/locations, just not the CGI, the cast size, or the musical song score aspects.)
And the best CGI is the stuff you DON'T see or even realize is CGI. Added trees and buildings in the background, clouds in the sky, birds, color and light correction, enhanced depth of field, additional compositing and motion tracking, wrinkle removing, wire removal, adding or removing blood or dirt stains, etc. You think everything is real, but it's not. Almost every film has some CGI in it now.
Based on the script I read, probably the most demanding CGI effect is going to be the tree morphing into Cinderella's mother ... and there are several tree effects with the characters mentioned during the finale.
The giant, we never (or barely) even see. Still, I'm sure there will be teases (a hand brushing across treetops, a shoulder in the shot, a foot lifting up, etc.)
$40 million is six less than Winter's Tale, with no "wow" special effects, musical song score, or large star cast. It's not realistic.
$55 is what I would call a tight but realistic budget.
EDIT: Can you make it for less money? Absolutely. And it will absolutely show on the screen, without question.
I'll take $55 million total! I could see that working. (And I'm in agreement about the sets/locations, just not the CGI, the cast size, or the musical song score aspects.)
And the best CGI is the stuff you DON'T see or even realize is CGI. Added trees and buildings in the background, clouds in the sky, birds, color and light correction, enhanced depth of field, additional compositing and motion tracking, wrinkle removing, wire removal, adding or removing blood or dirt stains, etc. You think everything is real, but it's not. Almost every film has some CGI in it now.
Based on the script I read, probably the most demanding CGI effect is going to be the tree morphing into Cinderella's mother ... and there are several tree effects with the characters mentioned during the finale.
The giant, we never (or barely) even see. Still, I'm sure there will be teases (a hand brushing across treetops, a shoulder in the shot, a foot lifting up, etc.)
$40 million is six less than Winter's Tale, with no "wow" special effects, musical song score, or large star cast. It's not realistic.
$55 is what I would call a tight but realistic budget.
EDIT: Can you make it for less money? Absolutely. And it will absolutely show on the screen, without question.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 2/15/14 at 02:24 PM
#2163
Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:29pm
bobs3---that's a great point. With a $40 million budget, there is no reason why two studios would be sharing the cost (and profits).
That makes no sense at all.
That makes no sense at all.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#2164
Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:30pm
Agreed Best12. Great points.
What I'm intrigued by is if Disney's gargantuan success with FROZEN has any impact on how they are now viewing INTO THE WOODS. If they think WOODS will be another cash cow that will appeal to very young audiences, I could see them investing more in it (from a special effects budget) or perhaps ( more likely) they will feel WOODS is really a more adult film (along the lines of their SAVING MR. BANKS) with less appeal for children and more appeal as awards bait -- and so want to keep the film not only modestly produced but produced with a more sophisticated point of view (i.e. 'showing the giant' (appeals to kids) or 'hinting at the giant' (more for adults). A merchant Ivory level INTO THE WOODS wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
What I'm intrigued by is if Disney's gargantuan success with FROZEN has any impact on how they are now viewing INTO THE WOODS. If they think WOODS will be another cash cow that will appeal to very young audiences, I could see them investing more in it (from a special effects budget) or perhaps ( more likely) they will feel WOODS is really a more adult film (along the lines of their SAVING MR. BANKS) with less appeal for children and more appeal as awards bait -- and so want to keep the film not only modestly produced but produced with a more sophisticated point of view (i.e. 'showing the giant' (appeals to kids) or 'hinting at the giant' (more for adults). A merchant Ivory level INTO THE WOODS wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
Updated On: 2/15/14 at 02:30 PM
#2165
Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:44pm
I was actually relieved when I heard (and saw) they weren't going for a total CGI fairytale environment, like they did for Oz and Wonderland.
I'm in agreement that too much CGI is not a good thing. And it also costs way too much.
Then I came to realize (watching a short making-of on the Oz film), that some of what I thought was a CGI landscape was actually real sets. They just look like CGI on film ... and I don't think that was such a good thing. Flat, over-saturated lighting, flat depth of field, etc. It might as well have been built inside a computer.
For me, with digital photography instead of real film stock, and CGI environments, and digital projection or streaming playback, everybody starts to look like they're walking around inside a video game. I hate it.
So I'm all for something that looks like a Merchant-Ivory production ... as long as the birds, and the tree-mother, and the transformations all look good and true and fit the "realistic' setting. They just can't skimp there, or it will show.
I'm in agreement that too much CGI is not a good thing. And it also costs way too much.
Then I came to realize (watching a short making-of on the Oz film), that some of what I thought was a CGI landscape was actually real sets. They just look like CGI on film ... and I don't think that was such a good thing. Flat, over-saturated lighting, flat depth of field, etc. It might as well have been built inside a computer.
For me, with digital photography instead of real film stock, and CGI environments, and digital projection or streaming playback, everybody starts to look like they're walking around inside a video game. I hate it.
So I'm all for something that looks like a Merchant-Ivory production ... as long as the birds, and the tree-mother, and the transformations all look good and true and fit the "realistic' setting. They just can't skimp there, or it will show.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#2166
Posted: 2/15/14 at 2:56pm
I had thought WB's involvement in INTO THE WOODS had something to do with honoring Rob Marshall's previous development deal with the studio to film a remake of THE THIN MAN, which WB shelved. That movie was to have starred Depp and Emily Blunt (who were both moved over to INTO THE WOODS). I could be totally wrong and talking out my ass -- but I don't think WB has contributed substantially to the budget of INTO THE WOODS.
#2167
Posted: 2/15/14 at 3:01pm
I wouldn't know, but that may very well be. So many deals go on behind the scenes that we don't know about.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#2168
Posted: 2/15/14 at 3:05pm
It was made public that the THIN MAN project was being shelved at WB, and that Marshall had moved forward with a 2 year exclusive development deal at Disney in one big announcement, so I do think there is some correlation...
#2169
Posted: 2/15/14 at 10:13pm
Maybe they don't want to spend a lot of money on the background because Little Red Riding Hood sings, "The woods are JUST trees. The trees are JUST woods." LOL
Updated On: 2/15/14 at 10:13 PM
#2170
Posted: 2/15/14 at 10:41pm
All I care about at this point is that it's an enjoyable movie, budget or no budget.
Butters, go buy World of Warcraft, install it on your computer, and join the online sensation before we all murder you.
--Cartman: South Park
ATTENTION FANS: I will be played by James Barbour in the upcoming musical, "BroadwayWorld: The Musical."
#2171
Posted: 2/15/14 at 10:57pm
The weird thing is that the Hollywood Reporter has been the most accurate source for this movie. It first reported that Depp would play the Wolf, which was true, while Variety falsely reported that he would be playing the Baker. Some sources said that Pine would be playing Rapunzel's Prince, but the Hollywood Reporter said that he was cast as Cinderella's Prince. That was the only source that was right.
#2172
Posted: 2/16/14 at 8:42am
One bright spot in all of this is that they have a long time for the post-production work. Almost a year, in fact, between the final on-set production wrap and the opening day (this coming Christmas).
That's WAY longer than they had to do all the post work on Les Mis, and there were a lot of CGI shots and VFX work in Les Mis (more than you probably realize). With only a few months to get it all finished, I'm sure some of it had to be rushed ... and that costs money.
With roughly 11 months to complete Into the Woods, they shouldn't be incurring any rush fees from post houses ... unless they decide to go back and redo something. They actually have time, if they wanted to do it. So if Disney decides they want to put a little more money into a certain visual effect or shot, there is definitely time in the post-production schedule to allow for that. If they like what they see, as is, they can leave alone. This extra time allows for more options.
That's WAY longer than they had to do all the post work on Les Mis, and there were a lot of CGI shots and VFX work in Les Mis (more than you probably realize). With only a few months to get it all finished, I'm sure some of it had to be rushed ... and that costs money.
With roughly 11 months to complete Into the Woods, they shouldn't be incurring any rush fees from post houses ... unless they decide to go back and redo something. They actually have time, if they wanted to do it. So if Disney decides they want to put a little more money into a certain visual effect or shot, there is definitely time in the post-production schedule to allow for that. If they like what they see, as is, they can leave alone. This extra time allows for more options.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#2173
Posted: 2/16/14 at 5:34pm
I think we are all avoiding the big pink elephant in the room. CGI and Budgeting is one thing, but my biggest concern is that the film is being backed by Disney. A studio that likes to take stories, twist them, tweak them, and then spit them out with little to none of the original source material or it's original message, left intact.
I hope that Sondheim has been assertive with Disney and Rob Marshall (after he watered down Chicago) so that some of the darker themes in Into the Woods (Death of the bakers wife, The /real/ intentions of the Wolf, ect) remain intact.
Quite frankly, I'm afraid Into the Woods is just going to be some Disney kid friendly bullsh*t.
I hope that Sondheim has been assertive with Disney and Rob Marshall (after he watered down Chicago) so that some of the darker themes in Into the Woods (Death of the bakers wife, The /real/ intentions of the Wolf, ect) remain intact.
Quite frankly, I'm afraid Into the Woods is just going to be some Disney kid friendly bullsh*t.
#2174
Posted: 2/16/14 at 5:44pm
The wolf's "real" intentions are metaphorical subtext- he is interested in literally killing and eating Red and Granny, but the scene is written so as to RECALL sexual predation.
And Disney has been experimenting more and more lately with entertainment tilted towards a more mature audience. Saving Mrs. Banks was last year's "Disney Premium" project, so to speak. I have no reason to believe that Into The Woods will be tilted towards children.
And Disney has been experimenting more and more lately with entertainment tilted towards a more mature audience. Saving Mrs. Banks was last year's "Disney Premium" project, so to speak. I have no reason to believe that Into The Woods will be tilted towards children.
#2175
Posted: 2/16/14 at 8:00pm
BobbyBubbi The screen play is readily available, take a look and decide for yourself if you feel it will be changed into something kid friendly. There were indeed some changes made, and one change is fairly questionable, but may still pack a punch.
As far as the red riding hood thing goes. It was deemed that the original actress they cast in the role was too young for the part. Her parents had her removed from the film. That suggests that the scene will retain the original undertones.
As far as the red riding hood thing goes. It was deemed that the original actress they cast in the role was too young for the part. Her parents had her removed from the film. That suggests that the scene will retain the original undertones.
Maximum Thread Size of 5,000 Messages Reached
Please Start a New Thread!
Please Start a New Thread!
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $72
Tickets From $65