Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pretty much every movie in existence has had toys and merchandise at some point. My point is that if you're trying to pitch a movie (an experimental sci-fi at that) you're going to create an immediate barrier for yourself by making it an 18 or 15+. Any studio is going to worry when you cut out a big chunk of your audience. You need to be able to prove your movie will make money even without that section of viewers.

You say the fans will still go and see it even if it's crap. My memory reaches back to the Final Fantasy movie, Spirits Within and it disagrees quite strongly. And Final Fantasy has a much larger fan base than 40k does.

But a movie is unlikely to happen as you say, but it's usually in times of growth like GW is experiencing right now that companies would experiment. And as an aside, it's not Slannesh that would worry me being in a movie, it's Nurgle.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Pretty much every movie in existence has had toys and merchandise at some point. My point is that if you're trying to pitch a movie (an experimental sci-fi at that) you're going to create an immediate barrier for yourself by making it an 18 or 15+. Any studio is going to worry when you cut out a big chunk of your audience. You need to be able to prove your movie will make money even without that section of viewers.

You say the fans will still go and see it even if it's crap. My memory reaches back to the Final Fantasy movie, Spirits Within and it disagrees quite strongly. And Final Fantasy has a much larger fan base than 40k does.

But a movie is unlikely to happen as you say, but it's usually in times of growth like GW is experiencing right now that companies would experiment. And as an aside, it's not Slannesh that would worry me being in a movie, it's Nurgle.

I understand and can agree with your first statement. Studios would worry. Hopefully there are still the odd exceptions around there, but perhaps not for the millions required to make 40k good.

Final Fantasy was a bit of a flop. It also wasn't a good movie (at least in my own opinion), so it probably over performed. It also ruined their chances of making subsequent movies great and popular for a while (I've seen Kingsglaive, which is also weirdly paced, confusing but somewhat formulaic poop IMHO, but not seen advent children).
Stats here:
Budget:$137,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend USA: $11,408,853, 15 July 2001, Wide Release
Gross USA: $32,131,830, 26 August 2001
Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $85,131,830
I wonder how much other stuff it sold, like games etc.

Why would Nurgle bother you? I know it'd be pretty gross... are you saying it'd bother you personally... or would bother the censors more... or both? Zombies and plague outbreaks may be easier to sell than sex crazed rape lobsters... although Hellraiser was a little kinky (especially the much later ones which show the cenobites as originally liking hedonism and pleasure, but eventually going for new realms of pain).

Nurgle would be a concern because of the visual impact. You can't get away from what it is, which is literal rotting bodies, disease, decay etc. You can't downplay or get away from that. Slaanesh is not just about sex. It's about excess, pleasure, perfection. You can easily play away from any sex aspect for another focus. Same way Khorne can be violent warriors or Tzeentch could be robed mages and schemers. Much easier immediate sell than Nurgle.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Nurgle would be a concern because of the visual impact. You can't get away from what it is, which is literal rotting bodies, disease, decay etc. You can't downplay or get away from that.

Pretty sure kids know what zombies are.
I really think this worry about target demographic is a non-issue. Was Robocop 18+? Yes. Did that stop kids from seeing it and thinking it was awesome? Nope. Kids want to see things that are forbidden to them. Worrying about them seeing it is a waste of time, because they will see it.

Not to mention that the actual miniatures already have rotting, decaying bodies.



That's a mighty fine intestinal tract you have there.

Big difference when you're pitching to get a movie funded and made. Robocop, Alien and a tonne of others are all 18+, but they didn't already have an audience of younger kids. And a studio will want to know why you're excluding them from your target audience and as such cutting out their money. Also, static guts on a plastic model is vastly different from f/x you can get today.

Except you're not excluding them from your target audience, because adolescents will still want to see it, and if you try to market it towards them, chances are it will backfire spectacularly.
See: Robocop 3, which was arguably more kid orientated. No one liked it. Even its "target audience"

In fact, if you really want to aim a movie towards adolescents, you make it more graphic, not less. Let the zombies have their guts. It worked for The Walking Dead, didn't it?
This would especially be true in the case of a wh40k movie; most of the people going to see it would be wh40k fans, and there's a good chance they'll want to see it in all of its over-the-top, grimdark glory. Especially the adolescent ones.
I mean, just look this old bit of artwork :



That guy has his spine hanging out. That's pretty brutal.

Age ratings are a dumb concept enforced by bureaucrats. It hurts good film making, not help it.

As you mention the Walking Dead I've got a question for those who know more about movie production than myself. How much do you think things like makeup would cost for a Warhammer film?

I'd expect it to be above average as for all the aliens, gore and general weirdness you have in 40k you'd need to make it all look good. I think like the Walking Dead it benefits a lot from good effects and that just adds effort onto making storylines and such.

Only way to make it would be about a none lore character or a story that does not focus on any chapter. Because if you make a movie about say, ultramarines, everyone who hates ultramarines will not like it, or xeno players.

It would need to be a basic strong set in lore but out side of the main heresy story.

Honestly I never see it because no matter what you are going to not make a large portion or your fan base happy.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Only way to make it would be about a none lore character or a story that does not focus on any chapter. Because if you make a movie about say, ultramarines, everyone who hates ultramarines will not like it, or xeno players.

It would need to be a basic strong set in lore but out side of the main heresy story.

Honestly I never see it because no matter what you are going to not make a large portion or your fan base happy.

What I really would like to see is a film adaptation of the All Guardsman Party. You can make a good series out of that.
Though as its based on a bunch of RPG games, changes might have to be made. Like dropping the whole Tau arc and them using pulse weapons at some point.

http://www.theallguardsmenparty.com/

Ironicly I think they best way to bring 40k to the screen, would be a cartoon. Like what rough neck starship troopers was (yeah that's right feel old everyone) and follow around either a guard company or a kill team.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Except you're not excluding them from your target audience, because adolescents will still want to see it, and if you try to market it towards them, chances are it will backfire spectacularly.
See: Robocop 3, which was arguably more kid orientated. No one liked it. Even its "target audience"

In fact, if you really want to aim a movie towards adolescents, you make it more graphic, not less. Let the zombies have their guts. It worked for The Walking Dead, didn't it?
This would especially be true in the case of a wh40k movie; most of the people going to see it would be wh40k fans, and there's a good chance they'll want to see it in all of its over-the-top, grimdark glory. Especially the adolescent ones.
I mean, just look this old bit of artwork :



That guy has his spine hanging out. That's pretty brutal.

Age ratings are a dumb concept enforced by bureaucrats. It hurts good film making, not help it.

Irrelevant. If you make it more graphic, you're never going to get it past the 18 rating and you're never going to be able to get the younger audience in to make the money.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Except you're not excluding them from your target audience, because adolescents will still want to see it, and if you try to market it towards them, chances are it will backfire spectacularly.
See: Robocop 3, which was arguably more kid orientated. No one liked it. Even its "target audience"

In fact, if you really want to aim a movie towards adolescents, you make it more graphic, not less. Let the zombies have their guts. It worked for The Walking Dead, didn't it?
This would especially be true in the case of a wh40k movie; most of the people going to see it would be wh40k fans, and there's a good chance they'll want to see it in all of its over-the-top, grimdark glory. Especially the adolescent ones.
I mean, just look this old bit of artwork :



That guy has his spine hanging out. That's pretty brutal.

Age ratings are a dumb concept enforced by bureaucrats. It hurts good film making, not help it.

Irrelevant. If you make it more graphic, you're never going to get it past the 18 rating and you're never going to be able to get the younger audience in to make the money.

Didn't stop Robocop, Predator and Aliens, now did it?
You appear to be under the impression that an 18+ rating generates a magical forcefield that repels anyone under that age from watching it. It doesn't, age ratings are useless.
If age ratings worked, then Call of Duty (rated M 17+) wouldn't be populated with 12 year olds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Ironicly I think they best way to bring 40k to the screen, would be a cartoon. Like what rough neck starship troopers was (yeah that's right feel old everyone) and follow around either a guard company or a kill team.

Well, that would solve the problems of portraying Space Marines and the like. Live Action? Quite difficult to do it convincingly, as you'd need a lot of CGI and prosthetics. Animation? Much easier.

I really think you could do an amazing HH movie series similar to Avengers (not in the kids comic style but in the way the universe is set up... IMO a cross between avengers and the batman series). What i mean by this is essentially give different factions their own movies in a greater universe until they all come together for the actual HH in the end.

Obviously, everyone on this board knows exactly how the HH ends but from an outside, it has all the greatness a true tragedy needs. It has a relatable villain and even all of the good guys are cast in shades of grey. Much of the HH could have been avoided other than a few tragic missteps. Great friendships and heartbreaking betrayals all on the backdrop of a setting that makes star wars look like kids play. After the main series, there is then thousands of amazing side movies you could make about anyone in the setting. Heck id love to see the actual great betrayal completely from Ollanius Pius pov (before they made him a perpetual)

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Except you're not excluding them from your target audience, because adolescents will still want to see it, and if you try to market it towards them, chances are it will backfire spectacularly.
See: Robocop 3, which was arguably more kid orientated. No one liked it. Even its "target audience"

In fact, if you really want to aim a movie towards adolescents, you make it more graphic, not less. Let the zombies have their guts. It worked for The Walking Dead, didn't it?
This would especially be true in the case of a wh40k movie; most of the people going to see it would be wh40k fans, and there's a good chance they'll want to see it in all of its over-the-top, grimdark glory. Especially the adolescent ones.
I mean, just look this old bit of artwork :



That guy has his spine hanging out. That's pretty brutal.

Age ratings are a dumb concept enforced by bureaucrats. It hurts good film making, not help it.

Irrelevant. If you make it more graphic, you're never going to get it past the 18 rating and you're never going to be able to get the younger audience in to make the money.

Didn't stop Robocop, Predator and Aliens, now did it?
You appear to be under the impression that an 18+ rating generates a magical forcefield that repels anyone under that age from watching it. It doesn't, age ratings are useless.
If age ratings worked, then Call of Duty (rated M 17+) wouldn't be populated with 12 year olds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Ironicly I think they best way to bring 40k to the screen, would be a cartoon. Like what rough neck starship troopers was (yeah that's right feel old everyone) and follow around either a guard company or a kill team.

Well, that would solve the problems of portraying Space Marines and the like. Live Action? Quite difficult to do it convincingly, as you'd need a lot of CGI and prosthetics. Animation? Much easier.

Removed! Rule #1 please - BrookM There will be no movie if you try and make it extreme. A studio is not going to fund a movie like this when you cut out a large portion of your revenue. And yes, the18 rating is a barrier, that's the point. You're not going to see a 12 year old walk unchallenged into a theatre to an 18+ movie.

And if you make it too sanitized you'll get a terrible film that no one's happy with. I'd rather have no movie than a trite, soulless one that's only there to make a buck.
Nurgle zombies are not a problem. If it was fine for Walking Dead and any other zombie films to have stuff like that, I don't see why wh40k can't have them.

Look, I get that a studio might see it as a risk. But to me that's more of a bureaucratic problem than a film problem, and most of the problems are due to arbitrary restrictions and practices that hurt film making more than helping it. Underage people will try to see it anyway, so in practice it doesn't really do anything.
Also, which rating system are we talking about? US or British? Because different countries have different rating systems. For example, in the United States a minor can see a R rated, provided he or she is accompanied by an adult.
Which means that yes, a 12 year old can walk unchallenged into a 18+ movie in the United States, provided there's an adult present.
I was thinking more of the American rating system.

It should start with very pleasant planet that is run by a benevolent planetary governor. An ideal place to live filled with positive people who know tomorrow will be a better day. Being chosen for the Imperial Tithe is considered an honour with boons provided to the family for members on the Tithe. Movie begins with a big celebration as the new "honoured" are selected and being picked up......cue Grimdark.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Except you're not excluding them from your target audience, because adolescents will still want to see it, and if you try to market it towards them, chances are it will backfire spectacularly.
See: Robocop 3, which was arguably more kid orientated. No one liked it. Even its "target audience"

In fact, if you really want to aim a movie towards adolescents, you make it more graphic, not less. Let the zombies have their guts. It worked for The Walking Dead, didn't it?
This would especially be true in the case of a wh40k movie; most of the people going to see it would be wh40k fans, and there's a good chance they'll want to see it in all of its over-the-top, grimdark glory. Especially the adolescent ones.
I mean, just look this old bit of artwork :



That guy has his spine hanging out. That's pretty brutal.

Age ratings are a dumb concept enforced by bureaucrats. It hurts good film making, not help it.

Irrelevant. If you make it more graphic, you're never going to get it past the 18 rating and you're never going to be able to get the younger audience in to make the money.

Didn't stop Robocop, Predator and Aliens, now did it?
You appear to be under the impression that an 18+ rating generates a magical forcefield that repels anyone under that age from watching it. It doesn't, age ratings are useless.
If age ratings worked, then Call of Duty (rated M 17+) wouldn't be populated with 12 year olds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Ironicly I think they best way to bring 40k to the screen, would be a cartoon. Like what rough neck starship troopers was (yeah that's right feel old everyone) and follow around either a guard company or a kill team.

Well, that would solve the problems of portraying Space Marines and the like. Live Action? Quite difficult to do it convincingly, as you'd need a lot of CGI and prosthetics. Animation? Much easier.

Removed! Rule #1 please - BrookM There will be no movie if you try and make it extreme. A studio is not going to fund a movie like this when you cut out a large portion of your revenue. And yes, the18 rating is a barrier, that's the point. You're not going to see a 12 year old walk unchallenged into a theatre to an 18+ movie.

I think you could still have plenty of grim darkness and battles without going to the R rating. Think movies like batman or ironman, plenty of people die its just not shown as arms being blown off and guts everywhere. I think you would want to keep the first several pg13 until you established a good solid base then do a side story that dials up the violence and see how it does. Save that for a saving private ryan style movie with guard or a true chaos movie full on gore.

A R rating is no longer seen by movie makers as the kiss of death thanks to the success of Deadpool.

that said I maintain a movie would proably be a less effective way to do it, a Netflix series focusing on an Inqusitor (adapt Eisenhorn maybe?) seems a MUCH better approuch. as a series allows you to really get into the setting without trying to cram a bajillion details into a 2 hour movie

BrianDavion wrote:
A R rating is no longer seen by movie makers as the kiss of death thanks to the success of Deadpool.

that said I maintain a movie would proably be a less effective way to do it, a Netflix series focusing on an Inqusitor (adapt Eisenhorn maybe?) seems a MUCH better approuch. as a series allows you to really get into the setting without trying to cram a bajillion details into a 2 hour movie

I actually have had this exact discussion with a friend not long ago. We both agreed a "inquisitor" movie would be the perfect way to introduce the setting.

But even marvel let the other movies kinda make the way for Deadpool to have its successful R rating. obviously, id love the movie to be R but i think you could do a 40k setting justice and still keep to a pg13 at first simply by not graphically showing the death that takes place

Also, what do you think of Denzel as an inquisitor? Think kinda like man on fire

Asmodios wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
A R rating is no longer seen by movie makers as the kiss of death thanks to the success of Deadpool.

that said I maintain a movie would proably be a less effective way to do it, a Netflix series focusing on an Inqusitor (adapt Eisenhorn maybe?) seems a MUCH better approuch. as a series allows you to really get into the setting without trying to cram a bajillion details into a 2 hour movie

I actually have had this exact discussion with a friend not long ago. We both agreed a "inquisitor" movie would be the perfect way to introduce the setting.

But even marvel let the other movies kinda make the way for Deadpool to have its successful R rating. obviously, id love the movie to be R but i think you could do a 40k setting justice and still keep to a pg13 at first simply by not graphically showing the death that takes place

Also, what do you think of Denzel as an inquisitor? Think kinda like man on fire

Yeah, that would be cool.
Seeing Samuel L Jackson as an Inquisitor could be great as well, if only for the potential Pulp Fiction references. "Gothic, melon-fether, do you speak it" "Say 'mon'keigh' again. Say 'mon'keigh' again, I dare you, I double dare you melon-fether, say mon'keigh one more Goddamn time!"

could work. really you'd need to craft an Inqusitor first and figure out what kind he is. is he a very cerebral type? an actiony type etc.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
A R rating is no longer seen by movie makers as the kiss of death thanks to the success of Deadpool.

that said I maintain a movie would proably be a less effective way to do it, a Netflix series focusing on an Inqusitor (adapt Eisenhorn maybe?) seems a MUCH better approuch. as a series allows you to really get into the setting without trying to cram a bajillion details into a 2 hour movie

I actually have had this exact discussion with a friend not long ago. We both agreed a "inquisitor" movie would be the perfect way to introduce the setting.

But even marvel let the other movies kinda make the way for Deadpool to have its successful R rating. obviously, id love the movie to be R but i think you could do a 40k setting justice and still keep to a pg13 at first simply by not graphically showing the death that takes place

Also, what do you think of Denzel as an inquisitor? Think kinda like man on fire

Yeah, that would be cool.
Seeing Samuel L Jackson as an Inquisitor could be great as well, if only for the potential Pulp Fiction references. "Gothic, melon-fether, do you speak it" "Say 'mon'keigh' again. Say 'mon'keigh' again, I dare you, I double dare you melon-fether, say mon'keigh one more Goddamn time!"

As funny as that would be i dont think he would make a good inquisitor like Denzel..... Now later on making Samual Jackson a commissar would be awesome "ask if we should fall back one more mother time and I will send you to the emperor to ask him face to face"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
could work. really you'd need to craft an Inqusitor first and figure out what kind he is. is he a very cerebral type? an actiony type etc.

I was thinking similar to the one whos journal you read on Malifax. Torn between how far he can go for the emperor before being consumed by chaos itself. The internal struggle between doing what must be done and going to far. That why I wouldn't do an actually established inquisitor for the first movie but let him develop the character for himself. Thas why i said think man on fire where he has that internal struggle with his own demons

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Didn't stop Robocop, Predator and Aliens, now did it?

Which one of those had a 18+ rating exactly?
For reference, in France, one of the only non-pornographic movie that almost got a 18+ rating was Martyrs (so something a bit… harder than those syfy movies), and that was overturned, because 18+ rating is the kiss of death in France: you can't show it in normal movie theaters.
Predator, Alien and Robocop were all 12+ in France lol we rock.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Ok ok, hear me out.
We should make the movie to be about Ultramarines!
In order to make it work, we'll have a squad of Ultramarine, who are out on their first mission. But they are tactical marines, not scout, nobody want to see scouts.
It should be on a famous planet, like, say, Mithron.
Let's say that the team is responding to some distress signal, it worked well in Alien.
The distress signal should come from a shrine guarded by Imperial Fists, so we can show how the Ultramarines are the very best of the space marines and how a dozen of them wins where a hundred lesser space marines fall.
We would set up the enemy to be black legion, plenty of CSM mooks to show being kill.
Let's have the Ultramarine standard be a Chaos detector that starts burning when Chaos corruption is nearby too!

I feel like my joke just flopped :(.
For those that don't know, I was describing the actual plot of a very real, 100% official canon movie made under official GW license:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarines:_A_Warhammer_40,000_Movie

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Didn't stop Robocop, Predator and Aliens, now did it?

Which one of those had a 18+ rating exactly?
For reference, in France, one of the only non-pornographic movie that almost got a 18+ rating was Martyrs (so something a bit… harder than those syfy movies), and that was overturned, because 18+ rating is the kiss of death in France: you can't show it in normal movie theaters.
Predator, Alien and Robocop were all 12+ in France lol we rock.

Robocop was 18 in the UK, R in the states.
An R rating is 18+ unless with an adult. In that case it doesn't matter what age you are.

Alien has several ratings, depending on the year and what version it is.
In the UK it originally had an X rating, which is higher than a 18+. In 1987 it was rerated to 18+, and the directors cut was rerated to 15+ in 2003.
In the US it's an R for the theatrical release, but MA for the uncensored TV version and apparently was rerated to PG for the TV version.

Predator already had a rerating, but not as much as Alien.
In the UK it was 18+ on release, 15+ in 2013
In the US its R.

And all 3 movies are rated 12 in France. Which is interesting, because in my observation those movies tend to be popular with adolescent males.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Ok ok, hear me out.
We should make the movie to be about Ultramarines!
In order to make it work, we'll have a squad of Ultramarine, who are out on their first mission. But they are tactical marines, not scout, nobody want to see scouts.
It should be on a famous planet, like, say, Mithron.
Let's say that the team is responding to some distress signal, it worked well in Alien.
The distress signal should come from a shrine guarded by Imperial Fists, so we can show how the Ultramarines are the very best of the space marines and how a dozen of them wins where a hundred lesser space marines fall.
We would set up the enemy to be black legion, plenty of CSM mooks to show being kill.
Let's have the Ultramarine standard be a Chaos detector that starts burning when Chaos corruption is nearby too!

I feel like my joke just flopped :(.
For those that don't know, I was describing the actual plot of a very real, 100% official canon movie made under official GW license:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarines:_A_Warhammer_40,000_Movie

Asmodios wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
A R rating is no longer seen by movie makers as the kiss of death thanks to the success of Deadpool.

that said I maintain a movie would proably be a less effective way to do it, a Netflix series focusing on an Inqusitor (adapt Eisenhorn maybe?) seems a MUCH better approuch. as a series allows you to really get into the setting without trying to cram a bajillion details into a 2 hour movie

I actually have had this exact discussion with a friend not long ago. We both agreed a "inquisitor" movie would be the perfect way to introduce the setting.

But even marvel let the other movies kinda make the way for Deadpool to have its successful R rating. obviously, id love the movie to be R but i think you could do a 40k setting justice and still keep to a pg13 at first simply by not graphically showing the death that takes place

Also, what do you think of Denzel as an inquisitor? Think kinda like man on fire

Yeah, that would be cool.
Seeing Samuel L Jackson as an Inquisitor could be great as well, if only for the potential Pulp Fiction references. "Gothic, melon-fether, do you speak it" "Say 'mon'keigh' again. Say 'mon'keigh' again, I dare you, I double dare you melon-fether, say mon'keigh one more Goddamn time!"

As funny as that would be i dont think he would make a good inquisitor like Denzel..... Now later on making Samual Jackson a commissar would be awesome "ask if we should fall back one more mother time and I will send you to the emperor to ask him face to face"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
could work. really you'd need to craft an Inqusitor first and figure out what kind he is. is he a very cerebral type? an actiony type etc.

I was thinking similar to the one whos journal you read on Malifax. Torn between how far he can go for the emperor before being consumed by chaos itself. The internal struggle between doing what must be done and going to far. That why I wouldn't do an actually established inquisitor for the first movie but let him develop the character for himself. Thas why i said think man on fire where he has that internal struggle with his own demons

Yeah it really depends, I think thats the thing about an Inqusitor movie, Inqusitors come from so many differan t walks of life you could cast just about anyone in it.

 bullyboy wrote:
Just do Storm of Iron, inflate the role of the one female guardswoman who survives the assault. Hawke can be made an even bigger role. Just need more intro to flesh it out,,but battle scenes are good to go.

I would spend an unhealthy amount of time in the theatres watching this. Storm of Iron was my favourite 40k book.

 Hollow wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You can have 10 million (overall) budget like Snatch that had Brad Pitt in it, or 50 million for the matrix.l

Jesus.... Those movies are 20 years old. Brad Pitt called Guy Ritchie to work with him after liking Lock Stock and took a percentage of takings rather than money up front. The Matrix had a production budget of over $60 million dollars. (The fact that you don't know that the production budget only accounts for about 50/60% of the total budget to bring a film to market shows how ignorant you are regarding this topic) and we will forget the fact that AGAIN Reeves took 10% of the films takings at the box office.

Why can't you just hold up your hands and say "Yeah, $20 million was way off base, I was wrong about that." and move on? You were wrong, are wrong and continuing to be so does nothing other than make you seem like an arrogant fool.

Okay then, Under the Skin 13 million with Scarlet Johansson, Birdman 16 million etc. 20 million is not way off base, as films are made with that budget and less but that's not what we are arguing about, don't try and change the argument. We are talking about A-list starts being irrelevant when it comes to budgets, they can be in 13 million budget and 200 million so if they can be at both ends of the scale in budget then A-list actors are NOT factor in how much a budget is going to be, plus actors can get paid on the back end and not actually receive an upfront amount, so no actually you are wrong, and you know it.

BrianDavion wrote:


Yeah it really depends, I think thats the thing about an Inqusitor movie, Inqusitors come from so many differan t walks of life you could cast just about anyone in it.

As long as they have British accent!

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You can have 10 million (overall) budget like Snatch that had Brad Pitt in it, or 50 million for the matrix.l

Jesus.... Those movies are 20 years old. Brad Pitt called Guy Ritchie to work with him after liking Lock Stock and took a percentage of takings rather than money up front. The Matrix had a production budget of over $60 million dollars. (The fact that you don't know that the production budget only accounts for about 50/60% of the total budget to bring a film to market shows how ignorant you are regarding this topic) and we will forget the fact that AGAIN Reeves took 10% of the films takings at the box office.

Why can't you just hold up your hands and say "Yeah, $20 million was way off base, I was wrong about that." and move on? You were wrong, are wrong and continuing to be so does nothing other than make you seem like an arrogant fool.

Okay then, Under the Skin 13 million with Scarlet Johansson, Birdman 16 million etc. 20 million is not way off base, as films are made with that budget and less but that's not what we are arguing about, don't try and change the argument. We are talking about A-list starts being irrelevant when it comes to budgets, they can be in 13 million budget and 200 million so if they can be at both ends of the scale in budget then A-list actors are NOT factor in how much a budget is going to be, plus actors can get paid on the back end and not actually receive an upfront amount, so no actually you are wrong, and you know it.

We have taken away the shovel yet he continues to dig....

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You can have 10 million (overall) budget like Snatch that had Brad Pitt in it, or 50 million for the matrix.l

Jesus.... Those movies are 20 years old. Brad Pitt called Guy Ritchie to work with him after liking Lock Stock and took a percentage of takings rather than money up front. The Matrix had a production budget of over $60 million dollars. (The fact that you don't know that the production budget only accounts for about 50/60% of the total budget to bring a film to market shows how ignorant you are regarding this topic) and we will forget the fact that AGAIN Reeves took 10% of the films takings at the box office.

Why can't you just hold up your hands and say "Yeah, $20 million was way off base, I was wrong about that." and move on? You were wrong, are wrong and continuing to be so does nothing other than make you seem like an arrogant fool.

Okay then, Under the Skin 13 million with Scarlet Johansson, Birdman 16 million etc. 20 million is not way off base, as films are made with that budget and less but that's not what we are arguing about, don't try and change the argument. We are talking about A-list starts being irrelevant when it comes to budgets, they can be in 13 million budget and 200 million so if they can be at both ends of the scale in budget then A-list actors are NOT factor in how much a budget is going to be, plus actors can get paid on the back end and not actually receive an upfront amount, so no actually you are wrong, and you know it.

We have taken away the shovel yet he continues to dig....

LOL no,

"It's not often I agree with Hollow here, but yes- You need some known names. Not only for pulling power, but also if you cast a bunch of no-names they better have acted in something before, or you're paying a load of fines just to the SAG just to take a chance on someone."

This is what you said, first of whether you need big names has nothing to do with the budget, you can have big names at either end of the spectrum of budget size, but there are films at either end of the spectrum that have no big names. Some directors will purposely not want big names like Prometheus and the squeal. Michael Fassbender was the only person that could be considered a big name but he was still not a big name by then by any reasonable standard, even big name actors will take gak pay for a specific role, if they "care" about it and gak like that.