GAR budgets

[krakenslayer]

There's no real purpose to this thread. I was just browsing IMDB and looking at how much the budgets were for each of Romero's films. It's pretty interesting, so I thought I'd stick 'em all here for comparison:

Night of the Living Dead: $114,000
There's Always Vanilla: $70,000
Season of the Witch: $90,000
The Crazies: $275,000
Martin: $80,000
Dawn of the Dead: $650,000
Knightriders: $3,000,000
Creepshow: $8,000,000
Day of the Dead: $3,500,000
Monkey Shines: $7,000,000
Two Evil Eyes: $9,000,000 (1)
The Dark Half: $15,000,000
Bruiser: $5,000,000
Land of the Dead: $15,000,000 (2)
Diary of the Dead: $2,000,000
Survival of the Dead: $5,000,000 (3)

Notes:
(1) The budget for Romero's segment was likely less than half of this figure

(2) I remember reading at the time that exchange rate fluctuations between the US and Canada meant that the real budget, when adjusted to take account of this, was reduced to around $12 million

(3) No official figure given yet but $5 million is the rumoured amount, and judging by the trailer, plot description, reviews and released footage, this seems roughly accurate

It's interesting to see the slump in budgets after the success of Night (they really did get screwed over on that one), and also the sudden jump after Dawn.

It's not immediately obvious on the above list because I didn't include the years of production or Romero's TV credits, but there was another slump after The Crazies, where Romero spent about four or five years doing nothing but a couple of sports documentaries and when he finally returned to the screen, it was with Martin (which was only budgeted at $80,000). This also seems to be the point at which Romero and The Latent Image crowd parted company, because Martin was his first Laurel production. Was The Crazies a big box-office failure?

[bassman]

I'm surprised to see that The Dark Half had the same budget as Land. I mean....Land was HUGE compared to TDH. Where did all the money go in TDH?:confused:

[krakenslayer]

I'm surprised to see that The Dark Half had the same budget as Land. I mean....Land was HUGE compared to TDH. Where did all the money go in TDH?:confused:

Yeah, it was actually a significantly higher budget than Land considering inflation and the Canadian exchange rate when Land was made. The Dark Half was a big Hollywood movie. In that kind of environment, it's easy to spend $100,000 on the catering budget alone. There were also lot of locations and a few expensive dream-sequences and a big finale, both of which used a lot of CGI at a time when CGI was much more inaccessible and expensive than it is today.

[SymphonicX]

TDH was awesome...

[krakenslayer]

TDH was awesome...

I thought so too. The "villain" was an awesomely memorable badass and finale is probably the most satisfying of all Romero's films. A lot of people don't seem to dig The Dark Half, but I just can't fault it.

[bassman]

Yeah, it was actually a significantly higher budget than Land considering inflation and the Canadian exchange rate when Land was made. The Dark Half was a big Hollywood movie. In that kind of environment, it's easy to spend $100,000 on the catering budget alone. There were also lot of locations and a few expensive dream-sequences and a big finale, both of which used a lot of CGI at a time when CGI was much more inaccessible and expensive than it is today.

Yeah...I didn't think about the sparrow sequence at the end. That was probably expensive. Even still...it just seems like Land should be way more expensive than TDH.

And just for the record...I like TDH. I'm not trying to talk bad about it. Land just seems gigantic by comparison.

Ya know. Romero may not have made too many flicks in 40+ years, but he has a pretty decent record. Just looking at that list of films, the majority of them I really enjoy.:)

[AcesandEights]

I actually find these sort of posted details more interesting for the points that those more knowledgeable about GAR, than myself, are bound to bring to the table.


I'm surprised to see that The Dark Half had the same budget as Land. I mean....Land was HUGE compared to TDH. Where did all the money go in TDH?:confused:

<Insert drug joke here.>


Yeah, it was actually a significantly higher budget than Land considering inflation and the Canadian exchange rate when Land was made. The Dark Half was a big Hollywood movie. In that kind of environment, it's easy to spend $100,000 on the catering budget alone. There were also lot of locations and a few expensive dream-sequences and a big finale, both of which used a lot of CGI at a time when CGI was much more inaccessible and expensive than it is today.

Good points all. I recently was able to see the Dark Half after having only caught bits and pieces over the years and came away very happy.

[Mike70]

i'm not a fan of the dark half. i think that, along with his segment of two evil eyes, it is one of romero's worst movies.

nothing about it that i can really put my finger on but i've always been put off by the dark half. i've watched it a number of times and have given it second chance after second chance but it still leaves me feeling blah.

[krakenslayer]

Yeah...I didn't think about the sparrow sequence at the end. That was probably expensive. Even still...it just seems like Land should be way more expensive than TDH.

And just for the record...I like TDH. I'm not trying to talk bad about it. Land just seems gigantic by comparison.

Ya know. Romero may not have made too many flicks in 40+ years, but he has a pretty decent record. Just looking at that list of films, the majority of them I really enjoy.:)

I think with Land it was all about stretching what they had. Most of it's shot at night, so you see little snatches of desolated towns, but it's all just a couple of houses here and there done up to look run-down and the rest is darkness and your mind fills in the blanks. The shanty town sets were small but, again, presented in such a way as to suggest hundreds and hundreds of people living in squalor. It's very clever the way it's shot actually.

The zombie hordes were bumped up by CGI in some shots (much cheaper nowadays), but are clearly quite small in others (which a lot of people complain about), and this seems to be one area in which the budget-stretching didn't quite work.

[SymphonicX]

I thought so too. The "villain" was an awesomely memorable badass and finale is probably the most satisfying of all Romero's films. A lot of people don't seem to dig The Dark Half, but I just can't fault it.

totally, it's a brilliant film and arguably the best and most faithful King adaptation made...

[DubiousComforts]

Night of the Living Dead: $114,000
The Crazies: $275,000
Martin: $80,000
NIGHT was actually produced for about $12,000 - $15,000 cash. Romero & co. owned all of their own equipment, had the facilities of both The Latent Image and Hardman Associates at their disposal, and the rest of the budget was deferred payments for services.

There is no way in hell that The Crazies was produced on a budget of $275,000. It had a much smaller crew than NIGHT and probably a shorter shooting schedule. The budget for Martin seems more in line as to how much The Crazies would have cost.


i'm not a fan of the dark half. i think that, along with his segment of two evil eyes, it is one of romero's worst movies.
Out of Romero's post-DAY/pre-LAND films, Monkey Shines is my favorite of the bunch. Despite being saddled with an absolutely retarded ad campaign, it just plays the most like a George Romero indy film as opposed to The Dark Half which is too Hollywood.

[krakenslayer]

There is no way in hell that The Crazies was produced on a budget of $275,000. It had a much smaller crew than NIGHT and probably a shorter shooting schedule. The budget for Martin seems more in line as to how much The Crazies would have cost.

$275,000 was the reported budget but, like with Dawn, they probably inflated the sum to give them a better bargaining position with distributors.

[Philly_SWAT]

Yeah, I think those figures are made up/plain old wrong. I was pretty sure Night for made for $10,000 (yes they already owned cameras and stuff). It is well known that the budget for Dawn was purposefully lied about BY ROMERO and company, as they thought the real figure of $250,000 sounded so low that everyone would assume the movie sucked with that small of a budget, so they lied that it cost a lot more than it did.

As far as the Dark Half costing so much, it did have as its star an Academy Award winning actor. I am sure they dont come cheap.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I would reconfirm that with Romero on TDH because I remember someone asking him at Horrorfind in 2008 and he said it was $5,000,000 and they had to strecth the hell out of it because Orion pictures went under during production so a lot of the music was relooped throughout the movie to stretch the almighty dollar a bit.

[thxleo]

According to the bible on Romero, The Zombies that ate Pittsburgh, the budget for "Night of the Living Dead" was $114,000. That included the lab work and the deferrals to cast & crew after the film had been sold to a distributor.
Also from the bible, "The Crazies" budget was $225,000 and was put up by Lee Hessel. Lee Hessell had distributed "There's always Vanilla". The budget on "Martin" was under $100,000 - according to Richard Rubinstein.

[acealive1]

its crazy to think the remake of dawn had a HUGE budget and didnt look nearly as good as land which had a crap budget. leave it to the studio hacks to short romero on a genre he started and give some dude more money to remake somethin.


dawn 04 was crappy in that it looked staged. i was genuinely scared when i saw land, it had a gritty real feel to it.

[Philly_SWAT]

According to the bible on Romero, The Zombies that ate Pittsburgh, the budget for "Night of the Living Dead" was $114,000. That included the lab work and the deferrals to cast & crew after the film had been sold to a distributor.
Also from the bible, "The Crazies" budget was $225,000 and was put up by Lee Hessel. Lee Hessell had distributed "There's always Vanilla". The budget on "Martin" was under $100,000 - according to Richard Rubinstein.

But I think that a lot of the "according to" type deals are wrong. According to Bill Hinzman on "Autopsy of the Dead" he said that the Crazies had a lower budget than Night, which contradicts the above info. So I think that all info on GAR budgets has to be taken with a grain of salt.

[krakenslayer]

Dawn was made for a little over half a million. Ken Foree confirmed that at the QA I was at. Laurel exaggerated it to one million to give them more bargaining power.

[thxleo]

But I think that a lot of the "according to" type deals are wrong. According to Bill Hinzman on "Autopsy of the Dead" he said that the Crazies had a lower budget than Night, which contradicts the above info. So I think that all info on GAR budgets has to be taken with a grain of salt.

What do you base your theory on? Something Bill Hinzman said about The Crazies, 35+ years after the fact? The author, Paul Gagne, spoke with most of the biggest names involved with Romero's productions, including Vince Survinski who I'm sure you know was the bookkeeper at Latent Image. I've never heard anyone from Romero's films contradict anything in Gagne's book.

[Philly_SWAT]

Dawn was made for a little over half a million. Ken Foree confirmed that at the QA I was at. Laurel exaggerated it to one million to give them more bargaining power.
This is what I am talking about, different people always seem to have different opinions/stories/memories of what happened in the past. In this particular instance, I would think that Ken had nothing whatsoever to do with the budget back in the day, and was only repeating something he had heard more recently, and who knows that accuracy of that source.

[krakenslayer]

This is what I am talking about, different people always seem to have different opinions/stories/memories of what happened in the past. In this particular instance, I would think that Ken had nothing whatsoever to do with the budget back in the day, and was only repeating something he had heard more recently, and who knows that accuracy of that source.

I know, but it fits with what I've seen elsewhere. I've seen Dawn's budget quoted at $1 million, $1.5 million (on this very site) and $650,000. I've never seen anything about it being produced for $250,000, and I'd be surprised if they could have produced what they did on that amount.

[thxleo]

I know, but it fits with what I've seen elsewhere. I've seen Dawn's budget quoted at $1 million, $1.5 million (on this very site) and $650,000. I've never seen anything about it being produced for $250,000, and I'd be surprised if they could have produced what they did on that amount.

On the Dawn of the Dead ultimate edition commentary, Richard Rubinstein say's that the budget for Dawn, on paper, was $640,000. If anyone would know the correct numbers it would be Rubinstein.
On a side note, I thought Rubinstein's commentary was easily the best on that dvd set and one of the best I've ever listened to. You actually learn new information and interesting information from him.

[krakenslayer]

On the Dawn of the Dead ultimate edition commentary, Richard Rubinstein say's that the budget for Dawn, on paper, was $640,000. If anyone would know the correct numbers it would be Rubinstein.
On a side note, I thought Rubinstein's commentary was easily the best on that dvd set and one of the best I've ever listened to. You actually learn new information and interesting information from him.

Good info!

When it comes to dough, listen to your ol' pal Ruben$tein. :D

[DubiousComforts]

What do you base your theory on? Something Bill Hinzman said about The Crazies, 35+ years after the fact? The author, Paul Gagne, spoke with most of the biggest names involved with Romero's productions, including Vince Survinski who I'm sure you know was the bookkeeper at Latent Image. I've never heard anyone from Romero's films contradict anything in Gagne's book.
While The Zombies That Ate Pittsburgh is a great book, its research is not infallible. There are many errors in Gange's book at least as far as NIGHT is concerned, which is understandable considering his primary sources regarding the film are John Russo's filmbook, and both Romero's and Vince Survinski's own spotty recollections about 20 years after the fact.

Here are a few examples of incorrect information regarding NIGHT:

Page 27: "According to Romero, several alternate 'explanations' were shot but taken out of the final film when it was cut down for the distributor."

According to Chuck Craig who played the radio announcer/TV newscaster and wrote all of his own news copy for the film, there were no other explanations for the phenomena. Now I've even heard it said by the principals that the distributor was responsible for the Venus Probe explanation, but Craig had moved from Pittsburgh prior to production being completed, thus before any distributor was ever involved, so I believe this to be a case of selective memory on Romero's part.

Page 30: "First, (Vince) had to build a bridge to get to the place (the farmhouse in Evans City)..."

A bridge to the farmhouse area absolutely existed prior to the filming of NIGHT because there are photos dated 1966 showing the exact bridge where the sheriff's interview was filmed. Additionally, on the dvd commentary, Vince Survinski himself is unable to recall there even being a bridge in Evans City, let alone having built one!

Page 31: "In all, there were about 250 zombie extras for Night, including the clients and ad executives associated with the Latent Image and Hardman Associates as well as curious townspeople from Evans City"

Gary Streiner bust out laughing when told this. There couldn't have been more 50 extras total playing ghouls and that would still be a high estimate. Additionally, only five people from Evans City appear in the film with only two of them appearing as ghouls (possibly three because one of the five hasn't been confirmed).


On the Dawn of the Dead ultimate edition commentary, Richard Rubinstein say's that the budget for Dawn, on paper, was $640,000. If anyone would know the correct numbers it would be Rubinstein.
As a further example, Gange's book reports a budget of $1.5 million for DAWN, though I would agree that the figure more recently quote by Rubinstein is correct.

The fact is independent filmmakers would always inflate their budgets because if a film happened to be successful, the money men would expect the next movie to be delivered for the same cost. Nowadays, there is a trend to claim ridiculously low budgets ($70 for Colin) the idea being to garner attention as the "cheapest" in a saturated indy market.

In regards to The Crazies, we don't how much of the stated budget actually went to production since the distributor also funded the film. Romero has always complained that Cambist spent too much money on a limited release rather than opening the movie with a wider campaign.

[thxleo]

While The Zombies That Ate Pittsburgh is a great book, its research is not infallible. There are many errors in Gange's book at least as far as NIGHT is concerned, which is understandable considering his primary sources regarding the film are John Russo's filmbook, and both Romero's and Vince Survinski's own spotty recollections about 20 years after the fact.

Here are a few examples of incorrect information regarding NIGHT:

Page 27: "According to Romero, several alternate 'explanations' were shot but taken out of the final film when it was cut down for the distributor."

According to Chuck Craig who played the radio announcer/TV newscaster and wrote all of his own news copy for the film, there were no other explanations for the phenomena. Now I've even heard it said by the principals that the distributor was responsible for the Venus Probe explanation, but Craig had moved from Pittsburgh prior to production being completed, thus before any distributor was ever involved, so I believe this to be a case of selective memory on Romero's part.

Page 30: "First, (Vince) had to build a bridge to get to the place (the farmhouse in Evans City)..."

A bridge to the farmhouse area absolutely existed prior to the filming of NIGHT because there are photos dated 1966 showing the exact bridge where the sheriff's interview was filmed. Additionally, on the dvd commentary, Vince Survinski himself is unable to recall there even being a bridge in Evans City, let alone having built one!

Page 31: "In all, there were about 250 zombie extras for Night, including the clients and ad executives associated with the Latent Image and Hardman Associates as well as curious townspeople from Evans City"

Gary Streiner bust out laughing when told this. There couldn't have been more 50 extras total playing ghouls and that would still be a high estimate. Additionally, only five people from Evans City appear in the film with only two of them appearing as ghouls (possibly three because one of the five hasn't been confirmed).


As a further example, Gange's book reports a budget of $1.5 million for DAWN, though I would agree that the figure more recently quote by Rubinstein is correct.

The fact is independent filmmakers would always inflate their budgets because if a film happened to be successful, the money men would expect the next movie to be delivered for the same cost. Nowadays, there is a trend to claim ridiculously low budgets ($70 for Colin) the idea being to garner attention as the "cheapest" in a saturated indy market.

In regards to The Crazies, we don't how much of the stated budget actually went to production since the distributor also funded the film. Romero has always complained that Cambist spent too much money on a limited release rather than opening the movie with a wider campaign.

Jim, I agree the book isn't infallible. It is without a doubt the closest thing out there to being infallible though. According to Romero himself, Vince Survinski did build a small bridge to get to the farmhouse property. He told me this in May. Having said that, I know that Romero's memory is not the greatest. The one in the scene where the sherriff is being interviewed is not the bridge that I believe Romero is referring to. That bridge looked like it was made of steel.
The budget quoted for Dawn was the figure that Rubinstein had been quoting for years. The book was written only 6 - 7 years after Dawn's completion. It was only until recently that Rubinstein admitted that he inflated it that much.

[Philly_SWAT]

This is what I am talking about, different people always seem to have different opinions/stories/memories of what happened in the past. In this particular instance, I would think that Ken had nothing whatsoever to do with the budget back in the day, and was only repeating something he had heard more recently, and who knows that accuracy of that source.


I know, but it fits with what I've seen elsewhere. I've seen Dawn's budget quoted at $1 million, $1.5 million (on this very site) and $650,000. I've never seen anything about it being produced for $250,000, and I'd be surprised if they could have produced what they did on that amount.


On the Dawn of the Dead ultimate edition commentary, Richard Rubinstein say's that the budget for Dawn, on paper, was $640,000. If anyone would know the correct numbers it would be Rubinstein.
On a side note, I thought Rubinstein's commentary was easily the best on that dvd set and one of the best I've ever listened to. You actually learn new information and interesting information from him.

I guess I was wrong on the $250,000 figure. If that is what Rubenstein said, then I assume that is correct. Did he say on there too that they purposefully inflated the budget because they were worried that people would think it sucked if they heard the real budget? It has been a while since I listened to that commentary, and I dont remember where I got that info (I thought it was from multiple sources, actually).

[thxleo]

I guess I was wrong on the $250,000 figure. If that is what Rubenstein said, then I assume that is correct. Did he say on there too that they purposefully inflated the budget because they were worried that people would think it sucked if they heard the real budget? It has been a while since I listened to that commentary, and I dont remember where I got that info (I thought it was from multiple sources, actually).

Philly, Rubinstein said he inflated the budget because if he made it sound too inexpensive it would hurt his ability to get money in return for the film. The film's value for the world territories they would sell it to was the issue. He thought 1.5 million sounded like a believable figure for a non-Hollywood film and was able to triple his return.

[BillyRay]

Reviewing and comparing those budget numbers makes me wonder if those ammounts reflect inflation. For instance, is the NOTLD budget in 1968 or 2009 dollars? That would make a big difference up and down that chart.

[Philly_SWAT]

Philly, Rubinstein said he inflated the budget because if he made it sound too inexpensive it would hurt his ability to get money in return for the film. The film's value for the world territories they would sell it to was the issue. He thought 1.5 million sounded like a believable figure for a non-Hollywood film and was able to triple his return.
Ah Ok, thanks thxleo.


Reviewing and comparing those budget numbers makes me wonder if those ammounts reflect inflation. For instance, is the NOTLD budget in 1968 or 2009 dollars? That would make a big difference up and down that chart.
I think that those numbers (as accurate or inaccurate as they may be) are NOT adjusted for inflation.

[Mike70]

you know, this being just a general observation, our collective geekdom is enough to shatter a small planet and would probably kill lesser people than us from its sheer intensity. :D

IMDB suffers from the same sorts of problems that wikipedia does, only worse. there's a lot of great info on that site but some of it...yeah.

[Trin]

you know, this being just a general observation, our collective geekdom is enough to shatter a small planet and would probably kill lesser people than us from its sheer intensity. :D

Assuming geekdom wielded any power that is.

Good info all around guys. :)

[DubiousComforts]

According to Romero himself, Vince Survinski did build a small bridge to get to the farmhouse property. He told me this in May. Having said that, I know that Romero's memory is not the greatest. The one in the scene where the sherriff is being interviewed is not the bridge that I believe Romero is referring to. That bridge looked like it was made of steel.
I believe that Vince perhaps built a small bridge or some type of structure on the property to aid in getting water from the creek to the farmhouse, and that this is somehow being confused with a real bridge (one that can hold the weight of vehicles.)

But even if there was the necessity of building such a bridge, the entire area is surrounded by water with only one road leading to the location. Since both the film and newreel footage show cars and k-9 units driving over the bridge where the interview took place, it's hard to imagine that they would have utilized a different route.

I also found out today where the "250 zombie extras" rumor in Gagne's book originated from. I just received Cinefantastique Vol. 4 No. 1 from 1975 and in a roundtable discussion with Karl Hardman and Russ Streiner, John Russo claims "there were about 250 extras in the film." Even including all of the posse members, that amount still seems a bit high.

[thxleo]

I believe that Vince perhaps built a small bridge or some type of structure on the property to aid in getting water from the creek to the farmhouse, and that this is somehow being confused with a real bridge (one that can hold the weight of vehicles.)

But even if there was the necessity of building such a bridge, the entire area is surrounded by water with only one road leading to the location. Since both the film and newreel footage show cars and k-9 units driving over the bridge where the interview took place, it's hard to imagine that they would have utilized a different route.

I also found out today where the "250 zombie extras" rumor in Gagne's book originated from. I just received Cinefantastique Vol. 4 No. 1 from 1975 and in a roundtable discussion with Karl Hardman and Russ Streiner, John Russo claims "there were about 250 extras in the film." Even including all of the posse members, that amount still seems a bit high.

I wondered the same thing about them using a different route, but it didn't make sense to me either. In the interview I did with George, he said it was a small bridge large enough for a car to make it across. But again, George has a foggy memory at times, so I don't know.
Thanks for the info on the old CFQ article too.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Anyone bored enough to do a physical count of everyone they CAN see on screen?

[Griff]

Rubenstein definitely says on the commentary that the budget was $650,000 which he artificially reported as 1.5 million.

Roy Frumkes said that the budget for LAND was 14 million. Initially they were gonna get 20 million's worth by shooting up in Canada but as the exchange rate fell, it ended up only being about 15 million (ie. they lost 25% of their budget - ouch!).

[C5NOTLD]

I wondered the same thing about them using a different route, but it didn't make sense to me either. In the interview I did with George, he said it was a small bridge large enough for a car to make it across. But again, George has a foggy memory at times, so I don't know.
Thanks for the info on the old CFQ article too.

Why wouldn't they have just used the existing bridge (seen in the film) to get to the location instead of building a bridge? Never understood the building the bridge stories...






---------- Post added at 09:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------


I believe that Vince perhaps built a small bridge or some type of structure on the property to aid in getting water from the creek to the farmhouse, and that this is somehow being confused with a real bridge (one that can hold the weight of vehicles.)




I still don't know why you would need to build a bridge to get water / to get down to the rivers edge. Unless they walked out onto the bridge and dropped a bucket with rope attached to fill up.... But why not do that from the existing bridge and bring the water then by car to the location just a short distance away. Taking the time and effort to build a bridge of any size seems like a waste of time considering your options at the location.




---------- Post added at 09:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 AM ----------


, John Russo claims "there were about 250 extras in the film." Even including all of the posse members, that amount still seems a bit high.

Agreed - way too high..





---------- Post added at 10:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 AM ----------


What do you base your theory on? Something Bill Hinzman said about The Crazies, 35+ years after the fact?

Well he was the cinematographer and the budget would have been an issue.
They even had crew doubling as soldiers whenever possible which tells me that it's a ultra low budget shoot. Hinzman wanted another jeep to wreck for $400 and they couldn't afford that. They also couldn't even afford to upgrade the camera and used the same one from NOTLD. And never upgraded their lighting package which they definitely would have if the budget was larger than Night. Hinzman and his wife even did most of the effects.



.