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?

[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? 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? <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.