GAR budgets

[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.

[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. 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.