"Nine"-- $80 million budget. Note: rant ahead

[jpbran]

Posted: 1/13/10 at 3:54pm

I posted something similar in the past about "Rent", etc. and their pricey film adaptations. (couldn't find it in the "archives")

What the hell? "Nine" is not exactly a well-known stage property (to the general public at least), so why would Harvey and Bob W. spend this kinda money ($80m!) on a movie version? This disaster (one I liked so-so) is just another expensive black eye on the movie musical genre, and -- despite monster hits like "Mamma Mia"-- a real setback on the chances of lesser known, serious adaptations in the future.

Even "Dreamgirls" cost less and had a far more commercial soundtrack tie-in, residual American Idol publicity, and some songs recognizable to the general public. (and even with Oscar buzz still barely broke even).

"Nine" should have been reigned in to cost a similar amount to other adaptations like "Sweeney Todd" or "POTO", say around $50m MAX. While ST wasn't exactly a blockbuster here, it did ok and foreign sales (plus ancillary sources) probably put it into the black. I'd even bet "POTO" recouped. Will never happen with "Nine."

In a genre where things are so dicey -- I know studios still have "Rent," "Producers,", etc. in their heads even despite the occasional "Hairspray" or "MM"-- extravagances like this can be damaging to future projects.

"Nine's" artistic mis-steps aside, it's largely going to be remembered in the industry for losing anywhere from $70-80m. (remember -- theaters take 30-50% of ticket sales at various points throughout the run, and $80m didn't count marketing, etc.)

I'd rather see multiple "creatively" made $20-30m movie musicals (yes, they CAN be done) than one bloated $80m extravaganza. Sorry... rant over... (just not wanting Hollywood to recreate the era of big bombs like "Star" and "Dr. Dolittle", stifling the genre for who knows how long.)

[Pgenre]

Posted: 1/13/10 at 4:38pm

I just cannot comprehend how this movie musical in which EVERY SONG has the exact same basic set could possibly cost that much. I am very aware of unions and such (although this was filmed in the UK so that is less of a concern than if it were shot in NYC or something) and how budgets work but, I mean, you really wouldn't think this was a big budget movie just by looking at it. Could the cast have been that expensive? Did the reshoots tack on an extra 5-10 mil and push it over the edge? I'm really curious what the explanation will be as this just does not look like a big-budget movie... MOULIN ROUGE and POTO looked twice as expensive with half the budget.

WHAT a BOMB!

P

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/13/10 at 4:50pm

The difference was probably cast. POTO was mainly A- and B-list stars, with a few rising hopefuls who have recently become big stars (hello, Gerard Butler, you Welsh barstid.)

Moulin Rouge had one megastar in Nicole Kidman, one lesser star in Ewan McGregor, and a cast of semi-recognizable character actors one wouldn't call stars by any stretch. Sure, Leguizamo and Broadbent get a lot of work, but they're more known for familiar-sounding names than for popular resume work.

Nine has a literal all-star cast. Other than the nameless ensemble characters, every single character in the movie is played by a high-up A-list celebrity, which HAD to cost a lot.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/13/10 at 4:56pm

Daniel Day-Lewis Marion Cotillard Penélope Cruz Nicole Kidman Judi Dench Kate Hudson Sophia Loren

I bet that is half the budget right there.

[mywonderwa11]

Posted: 1/13/10 at 5:04pm

JoeKv, did you forget how to use commas?

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/13/10 at 5:08pm

9. The grammar nazi troll

Let's talk hypothetically: in your blog post, you found the cure for cancer. Not only that, you ended genocide and made reality television programming illegal. But, in your fervor, you used a serial comma or were careless with your use of its/it's. The grammar nazi troll will be here in a flash to tell you what a worthless piece of **** you are for your abominable command of the English language. The grammar nazi troll likely has no publications of note but carefully copy edits all its rejection letters. Also, the grammar nazi troll reading this post is really upset that I didn't capitalize "nazi."

[Pgenre]

Posted: 1/13/10 at 5:12pm

6. The troll who can't let it go

It may have been 2 days or 2 months ago, but you once said something that this troll didn't agree with. And while you have moved on, this troll has not. One day, you'll be posting about, say, Skittles. The troll who can't let it go will pop up and remind you about that time you said you hated glitter, didn't believe in the public option or thought we should legalize the possession of small amounts of narcotics. Chances are even you forgot you hated glitter, but this troll never forgets.

[jpbran]

Posted: 1/13/10 at 5:28pm

ANYHOO.

I figured the cast would eat up a lot of the budget, but assumed like many projects, this was a "prestige" project not done at their usual salaries, especially since many had 1-2 scenes max.

Also-- Nicole Kidman. LOVE her to pieces (one of my faves actually -- she held the door at Starbucks for me here in Nashville and I was just agog) but she's box office poison, to borrow an ancient phrase. Serious $$$ curse. And surely the Weinsteins knew that.

And like someone else said-- most of the elaborate, expensive numbers were on the same set that didn't even try to disguise looking like a set! No. Excuse. For. $80m.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/13/10 at 6:13pm

Aw P, don't sell yourself short you're not just a #6 Troll, you is all kind of Troll, bro.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 1/14/10 at 11:43am

Kinda difficult to explain financing but one of the cost of the film NOT on the screen( where a lot o $$ ends up) is the PR campaign.That can add ( on an international campaign) 20-30%.Plus the cost of borrowing the money ( yep fims are capitalized too) No tie in products to help off set costs.( hey buy a Dunkin Donuts and get a Strip tease Carla mug!)I am also willing to bet that a lot of the A listers took less than their usual $ because its an ensemble film and they don't have to carry it ( also can't be completely blamed either!) and there is a certain cachet to musicals right now. (tho w busts like this how long that will be true is highly questionable)

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/14/10 at 2:44pm

I can't imagine any of them got mega-salaries for what amounts to roughly ten minutes of screen time each. (Except for Day-Lewis.)

FYI, for Dreamgirls, they all worked for just slightly above "scale," with the exception of Eddie Murphy, who admitted to a huge pay cut regardless. Beyonce said she was paid Union wages. So were newcomers Hudson and Rose. Yet that was not a cheap film to make, by any means.

As jpbran pointed out, these are considered "prestige" projects and very risky at that. It's a chance for film actors to do a movie musical. A very rare chance.

Not sure why NINE didn't cost $50 million instead of $80 million, though. If they did pay hefty price tags for these actors, that was ... not a good move.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 1/14/10 at 3:03pm

Why would they work for cheap? This isn't an art-house film with a small budget (as we're discussing). They had a lot of money to toss around, why not toss it Nicole Kidman's way? And, they filmed in Italy and London- isn't that more expensive? And didn't it have a really long production period? It seems like they were working on it for a year or more. Plus the promotion budget had to be huge- they did tie ins with everyone from Food Network to Oprah.

They should signed Olive Garden for a Happy Meal Deal.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 1/14/10 at 7:58pm

A financial explanation of how big a bomb NINE is

[Brick]

Posted: 1/14/10 at 8:36pm

This is cast is pretty much all A-List. There rehearsed for weeks and filmed in London and Italy.

Expensive.

[bk]

Posted: 1/14/10 at 8:58pm

The Nikki Finke article doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of how much money this is going to lose. It is now clear that it's a huge financial bomb - the prints and advertising budget is higher than even I thought (and she's right about it) and the film hasn't even taken in quite the piss-poor amount that's being reported. No, at the end of the day, this film, whatever one thinks of it, will cause the Weinstein's more trouble than they've ever had.