Full $71M breakdown for The Village by M. Night Shyamalan (2003) [pdf](wlmager.com)
wlmager.com
Full $71M breakdown for The Village by M. Night Shyamalan (2003) [pdf]
https://wlmager.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Budget-The-Village-Shyamalan-copy.pdf
175 comments
Same. Maybe I was a naive young adult, but I totally did not anticipate the twist in that plot. So in that regard I felt like I got my money's worth.
I used a lot that movie as an analogy during covid, when we were told that all borders were closed and it was impossible to travel, but the few friends who actually showed up at airports were surprised to see the whole thing functioning normally and be a rather nice experience (no lines). That was 2020 of course. 2021 was a different story.
I had a girlfriend in Denmark and travelled throughout the whole of covid. In Denmark the restrictions weren’t just less they were at different times. Which is the biggest deal because if you move about and the rules are all different they don’t make any sense and hence don’t impose a sense of ordered control. I’d have coffee on the high street in Denmark and then be berated on a train in London the day after by a crazed wild eyed old lady ( who understandably ) had spent the last 6 months or so quarantined in a basement and was cross I was drinking coffee and lowering a mask ( no masks were even required in Denmark that I remember)when I mentioned I had literally been in cafe without a mask the day before it wasn’t a look of annoyance but utter confusion. Understand this was during the height where everything was closed lockdowns extending the darkest moment before the dawn type thing.
The different timing of the rules is what honestly made me not experience the restrictions - just an odd confusion.
Lastly I remember I walked to the airport , told a stewardess in the airport I was going to try fly same day to Denmark and she looked at me like I was insane ( 3 day covid testing required).
I bought a ticket from a machine walked straight into a place with a passport check landed in Denmark - no test. ( when flying to Denmark the test could be done on landing at the airport I have no idea why but it was legal - they just didn’t bother to mostly)
The airport lady wouldn’t have believed it but even to her , working in global field - changing global differences hadn’t registered.
TLDR You CAN have a The Village situation IRL I experienced it!!
The different timing of the rules is what honestly made me not experience the restrictions - just an odd confusion.
Lastly I remember I walked to the airport , told a stewardess in the airport I was going to try fly same day to Denmark and she looked at me like I was insane ( 3 day covid testing required).
I bought a ticket from a machine walked straight into a place with a passport check landed in Denmark - no test. ( when flying to Denmark the test could be done on landing at the airport I have no idea why but it was legal - they just didn’t bother to mostly)
The airport lady wouldn’t have believed it but even to her , working in global field - changing global differences hadn’t registered.
TLDR You CAN have a The Village situation IRL I experienced it!!
"Signs" was one of my favorite films of the 2000s, if you don't nitpick about the water. Suspenseful, well acted, leaves you guessing, eager for more.
Suffice to say, I eagerly anticipated "The Village" from the moment the first trailer dropped. The costumes looked cool. The colors, the creatures, the mood and the mystery.
I don't think I've ever left a theater quite so disappointed. The twist ruined what had been a magical experience for the better half of the film. I wanted the magic to endure, but I got slapped with a bad episode of "The Outer Limits".
Shyamalan remains a fantastic filmmaker for his hits, but this one hurt me. I don't wait for films anymore.
Suffice to say, I eagerly anticipated "The Village" from the moment the first trailer dropped. The costumes looked cool. The colors, the creatures, the mood and the mystery.
I don't think I've ever left a theater quite so disappointed. The twist ruined what had been a magical experience for the better half of the film. I wanted the magic to endure, but I got slapped with a bad episode of "The Outer Limits".
Shyamalan remains a fantastic filmmaker for his hits, but this one hurt me. I don't wait for films anymore.
I felt exactly the same about signs, and really loved the village.
I don’t really like the world we’ve built, and I fantasize about leaving it behind. That’s a major reason I lived in the Yukon for years (many people living more like the village than outside it)
These people (the village founders) had an idea and went for it. I really like that.
I don’t really like the world we’ve built, and I fantasize about leaving it behind. That’s a major reason I lived in the Yukon for years (many people living more like the village than outside it)
These people (the village founders) had an idea and went for it. I really like that.
Signs is the worst movie I’ve ever seen. The plot makes no sense and it’s not like it has good character development or dialogue so that leaves nothing.
Yep. Signs was the movie that revealed to me my irrational fear of aliens walking in the distance for uncertain purpose.
Not joking, I am a big strong man but I was holding onto my girlfriend and shaking like a leaf during that movie.
Then the water scene happens and ruined the whole movie for me.
But I still get hairs standing up on the back of my neck if I think too long and hard about 7' tall aliens walking sideways in the distance. (Actually getting creeped out just typing this out).
I love it that there is a thought that can disturb me. I don't know where it comes from and I can't exactly control it.
Anyway, same thing with the Village. Great mood. Great cinematography. Great acting. Supernatural horror ominous period piece. So much well crafted build up that ended with an unfunny rehash of the ending of Monty Python's Holy Grail. Total cop out to the rest of the story. Unforgivable.
Not joking, I am a big strong man but I was holding onto my girlfriend and shaking like a leaf during that movie.
Then the water scene happens and ruined the whole movie for me.
But I still get hairs standing up on the back of my neck if I think too long and hard about 7' tall aliens walking sideways in the distance. (Actually getting creeped out just typing this out).
I love it that there is a thought that can disturb me. I don't know where it comes from and I can't exactly control it.
Anyway, same thing with the Village. Great mood. Great cinematography. Great acting. Supernatural horror ominous period piece. So much well crafted build up that ended with an unfunny rehash of the ending of Monty Python's Holy Grail. Total cop out to the rest of the story. Unforgivable.
I'm a fan of the "aliens are demons" and "the water is holy" (you know, because he's a priest) interpretation.
It's a stretch, but makes the water fit into the story better (in my opinion).
It's a stretch, but makes the water fit into the story better (in my opinion).
It was ruined for me because we arrived just as it was about to start, were pointed to the wrong screen, and ended up walking in to a viewing in progress just in time to see enough to make the twist obvious...
As much as I've enjoyed many of Shyamalan's movies, the big problem with them is how much hinges on the twist. To this day I feel very little interest in rewatching them because of that.
As much as I've enjoyed many of Shyamalan's movies, the big problem with them is how much hinges on the twist. To this day I feel very little interest in rewatching them because of that.
It isn't only the twist, though, it's the timing of the twist. Plenty of movies with that kind of twist are re-watchable, but you have to put that twist about ... two-thirds, three-fifths of the way through. The rest of the film is devoted to the protagonist exploring the consequences of realizing that one of their big axioms was wrong. Shyamalan's timing puts the twist at the end, the characters don't really get to react, etc.
I swear I know this twist from a short story in an English textbook I read in school. Seemingly set in the mid-19th century, a pair of young teens, maybe a group of three, were in the process of exploring outside their village (I think with the intention of leaving for good) -- knowing it’s not allowed by village authorities -- when they walked onto a modern paved road and saw the headlights from a vehicle and didn’t know what they were looking at.
I never watched the movie but from all the conversations I’ve heard about it, it sounds like that’s the twist. This 19th-century village is just a probably slightly cult-y hideaway for some people in modern times. Is that right?
I never watched the movie but from all the conversations I’ve heard about it, it sounds like that’s the twist. This 19th-century village is just a probably slightly cult-y hideaway for some people in modern times. Is that right?
Variations on the this has been done many times, so I wouldn't be surprised. E.g the broader "protagonist lives in a bubble" theme includes The Truman Show, or Brian Aldiss' novel "Nonstop".
As someone else pointed out part of the problem w/how Shyamalan handles it is that too much hinges on the twist in some of his movies.
As someone else pointed out part of the problem w/how Shyamalan handles it is that too much hinges on the twist in some of his movies.
It’s always been the twist.
> the big problem with them is how much hinges on the twist
I feel similar but different to JJ Abrams' Cloverfield universe. Cloverfield Lane and Cloverfield Paradox are just 2 movies where he attaches a random scene at the end to tie them into the Cloverfield universe. Those scenes have nothing to do with the movie, and if left off would not negatively affect the movie itself.
I feel similar but different to JJ Abrams' Cloverfield universe. Cloverfield Lane and Cloverfield Paradox are just 2 movies where he attaches a random scene at the end to tie them into the Cloverfield universe. Those scenes have nothing to do with the movie, and if left off would not negatively affect the movie itself.
> Cloverfield Lane and Cloverfield Paradox are just 2 movies where he attaches a random scene at the end to tie them into the Cloverfield universe
That is exactly what it is supposed to be. Think of it like The Twilight Zone, every story is different but they all exist in a world that is distinct and unnatural.
I think JJ Abrams finally came up with a good way of explaining it to people: "It’s like Cloverfield is the amusement park, and each of these movies is a different ride in that park."
That is exactly what it is supposed to be. Think of it like The Twilight Zone, every story is different but they all exist in a world that is distinct and unnatural.
I think JJ Abrams finally came up with a good way of explaining it to people: "It’s like Cloverfield is the amusement park, and each of these movies is a different ride in that park."
Your critique is totally spot on. I can’t stomach Shyamalan’s current movies. Oddly though despite the cheap plot twist and how much it got made fun of in the media at the time, I love The Sixth Sense. I still watch it to this day. The scene where Cole sees the dead biker and tells his mom they’re standing outside the car window? Goosebumps every time.
I cant find the source right now but when Shyamalan wrote the Sixth Sense, it was a complete script on about the fifth draft before he even _thought_ of the twist. And I think thats why its such a great movie. Its like a twist that gives you a whole new movie on top of the perfectly good one you've already seen. And the twist is not just a gimmick, it has emotional depth.
edit: I first saw the sixth sense in perfect conditions - a pirated VCD from Malaysia before any publicity for it had happened in the UK, so had no idea what I was getting myself into other than it had Bruce Willis in it. Absolutely blew me away.
edit: found the source:
According to an interview in Scenario magazine (Volume 5, Number 4), Shyamalan had written five drafts of the screenplay before an idea came to him that transformed it into something totally new, leading to a landmark film with powerful performances from the film’s stars. It happened in the sixth draft.
https://www.stevendeeble.com/2016/05/31/evolution-of-a-scree...
edit: I first saw the sixth sense in perfect conditions - a pirated VCD from Malaysia before any publicity for it had happened in the UK, so had no idea what I was getting myself into other than it had Bruce Willis in it. Absolutely blew me away.
edit: found the source:
According to an interview in Scenario magazine (Volume 5, Number 4), Shyamalan had written five drafts of the screenplay before an idea came to him that transformed it into something totally new, leading to a landmark film with powerful performances from the film’s stars. It happened in the sixth draft.
https://www.stevendeeble.com/2016/05/31/evolution-of-a-scree...
I think you're right that The Sixth Sense is worth rewatching more so than his later ones.
For me it’s the kind of movie where if you know there is a twist you can immediately guess what it is.
But I’ve read and watched a lot of thrillers so they tend to become obvious after a while.
But I’ve read and watched a lot of thrillers so they tend to become obvious after a while.
On the other hand he also put Usual Suspects on that list (he argues the plot is too complicated). Can't disagree more.
This was Bryce Dallas Howard's first film so it was her big break, before that she had only done theater. Hopefully she got a percentage of the profit and some extra money for promoting the film.
Edit: Also worth noting that her father is Ron Howard so she probably didn't need the money.
Edit: Also worth noting that her father is Ron Howard so she probably didn't need the money.
Actors get paid for their ability to draw an audience, which largely depends on the success of their previous work. Howard was a nobody, but probaly got paid a lot better for her next movie, since this movie was a success.
Ebert's critique isn't wrong IMO, but I think misses the bigger picture about what did work well in the film
I recently learned that Ebert gave a positive review to Con Air.
Stop this shade throwing at a great work of cinema or the bunny gets it. Con Air is a timeless classic and he was totally right.
Up until Con Air, neither Nicholas Cage nor John Cusack had made a bad movie (well, -maybe- one each).
Up to and including. Right?
..
ಠ_ಠ
Right?
..
ಠ_ಠ
Right?
Criterion Collection material, certainly.
Criterion publishes The Rock and Armageddon, so why not?
He judged high art by the standards of high art, and schlock by the standards of schlock.
A lot of people confuse which one Shayamalan is.
And for what con air was, he was right.
From what I have learned about this whole show business / movie business / music business game as played at least in N. America and U.K. (?), the whole thing is pretty rigged and works on a "handshake" basis for the lack of a more loftier term. Hollywood , for the sheer amount of global power it wields, is amazing when you think about how its run like a company town & how little scrutiny it gets overall.
I highly recommend watching the HBO series, Vinyl (2016) about a record executive from the 1970s & the music business then. All those radio hits - that were hit and the ones that werent - you've always scratched your head about make a lot more sense when you understand the inner workings.
[1] Vinyl (2016)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3186130/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinyl_(TV_series)
I highly recommend watching the HBO series, Vinyl (2016) about a record executive from the 1970s & the music business then. All those radio hits - that were hit and the ones that werent - you've always scratched your head about make a lot more sense when you understand the inner workings.
[1] Vinyl (2016)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3186130/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinyl_(TV_series)
Movie goers buy individual tickets which makes a huge difference vs radio. Unpopular movies get booted from theaters very quickly where unpopular songs can stick around on the radio indefinitely.
And it doesn’t matter how connected you are, movie flops quickly kill careers.
And it doesn’t matter how connected you are, movie flops quickly kill careers.
If a movie isn't entertaining, then it's bad. If a movie is at least entertaining, then it's good.
It was also one of the first movies for Jesse Eisenberg, but I cannot find his character (Jamison) in the list. I wonder if it was renamed during shooting. There is a small part for Joseph ($8K total), but there is no character with this name in the final cast.
The pay gap in the star cast is huge for Howard. Was she just starting her career at this point?
Yes, it looks like this was her first or second notable role.
Yeah, sixth film credit… but the second one for which her character had a name.
And that other film appears to have had a box office under $1.4m, with a collection of basically nobody notable attached, including the director.
And that other film appears to have had a box office under $1.4m, with a collection of basically nobody notable attached, including the director.
I laugh at IMDB listings with the heavy (uncredited) listings in people's credits. Why not just tell the truth with listing the credit as Extra?
Probably because "Uncredited" signifies the absence in credits sequence(s) in general for crew and staff, while the term "Extra" applies just to actors.
I’m a simple man too. Ebert is like Punxsutawney Phil to me. He’s right about 30% of the time.
its one of my favorite modern movies. everything is done brillantly and the cinematography is probably shyamalan's best
I enjoyed it also. Memorable and unique.
ekianjo(3)
Shyamalan got good out of it. Usually it's ~5% of the budget for director, but he did write it as well and then some. Hefty fee. Looking through the budget I guess only surprise would be music composer at 4x Deakins' fee; That's interesting. Always weird to see Hollywood sheets like that, they're so inflated in some ways. For example, 50k for someone to run a generator on-set for three months and then also 30k for same generator rental. Or, matte shots/plates 50k apiece, 50k wrap party allowance, DI at 350k (jesus, yet whole of foley was 112k), titles at 160k, 2 AVID machines rental at 270k (even then one could've bought several times over several full systems for that), 20k for MIDI file transfer :P And all that's in 2003 money.
Generators on film sets aren’t the type of thing you power your house with in an outage; they are a truck sized, high power piece of specialist equipment. Running one of those generators safely with zero downtime is absolutely a job. People think of movie sets as dangerous places due to stunts, fire and explosions. I was always weary of the electricity.
I worked on a few films back in college. It's a huge deal if the generator goes down. It completely stops production, especially when shooting at night with giant lights. It's not possible to run most productions off of the normal power grid due to the voltage and amp requirements of the lights. At least that was the case before LEDs. I'm not sure what the large studio production lights are using these days.
And then you’re stuck paying for every cast and crew for the time they are not working. If you end up having to shoot another day, you’ll have to pay that too, which may not be budgeted for. This can easily put the value of a few lost minutes of power into the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It’s very similar to the discussion of self hosted vs cloud providers. Business people are willing to pay more for a predictable cost, rather than save a significant chunk of change but run the risk of having an unpredicted event that ends up with a large extra cost (such as replacing a whole rack tower
It’s very similar to the discussion of self hosted vs cloud providers. Business people are willing to pay more for a predictable cost, rather than save a significant chunk of change but run the risk of having an unpredicted event that ends up with a large extra cost (such as replacing a whole rack tower
I was on a number of film sets, you are right, but it's also not a job that warrants that much of a compensation and it usually is included in rental fee. Rarely will rental company of a genny give out generator itself without a guy or two.
Not only that, but rain and wet environments, it takes a skilled person to keep everyone safe, and also be able to wrench on a large diesel engine...while starting at 3 am, wrapping 14hrs later.
And in some large film unions, you need to pass a test just to get into the department, let alone run a generator.
And in some large film unions, you need to pass a test just to get into the department, let alone run a generator.
Those costs remind me of the cost for dealing with emergency water damage.
They would be extraordinarily cheaper if they were working nonstop, but the asks are so intermittent they have to charge enough to maintain availability of the service. This becomes especially true and high cost-of-living areas.
They would be extraordinarily cheaper if they were working nonstop, but the asks are so intermittent they have to charge enough to maintain availability of the service. This becomes especially true and high cost-of-living areas.
>2 AVID machines rental at 270k (even then one could've bought several times over several full systems for that)
You aren't paying for the machine, you're paying for a guarantee that there will be a working machine when and where you need it.
You aren't paying for the machine, you're paying for a guarantee that there will be a working machine when and where you need it.
The did pay additionally for AVID technicians
DI probably also involves at that time the cost of scanning it into film. I worked in the industry a little after this and some of the DI theatres rent out for 1K+ per hour, plus there’s conform artist time, incorporating new cuts, etc. I could see it.
This film gets bashed often but I remember seeing it in the cinema when it was released and I absolutely adored it, and still do. I’ve ’inflicted’ it on several friends and acquaintances — and keep in mind I’m no M. Night Shyamalan fan having never seen Unbrekable and having walked out of the cinema midway through The Last Airbender that I hold to be one of the worst films ever. Anyway back to The Village: its scenery and ambiance were absolutely perfect. The twist was pure genius.
I remember liking it a lot, I didn't see the twist coming even though the guy was known at the time for having a twist in his films. I liked how it wasn't just about a "gotcha" but revealed character motivations and how people try to retreat from the world due to trauma, and the lengths parents go to protect their children. I bet it would hit harder if I watched it now that I have children.
IDC about the twist. It's a standout to me on VIBE. Of what I've seen from MNS, it's my favorite.
The slo mo shot still gives me chills.
The film didn't work for me, because I didn't realise the "twist" was supposed to be a twist. I had assumed it from the start and was expecting the reverse to be the twist.
This is neat. I take it these these accounting breakdowns for films are hard to come by? Would love to see more for some of my favorite films.
This is the one people always cite when talking about big budget film breakdowns. I presume because it's the only one that's out there.
Edit: Apparently there's a leaked budget for The Interview out there. https://www.scribd.com/document/352522776/The-Interview-Budg...
Edit: Apparently there's a leaked budget for The Interview out there. https://www.scribd.com/document/352522776/The-Interview-Budg...
You and me both!
I expected the high fees for actors/director/writer, but the composer fee was surprising (page 69). And the movie was nominated for Oscars for original score (and nothing else)! Interesting decision to hire that composer, presumably made by MNS.
Does anyone know where I can find more film budgets broken down in detail like this?
Payments to producers of the film looks like this:
MNight - 7.2M$ + 0.3M$ + 3M$
Sam Mercer - 850k$
Scott Rudin - 3M$
Aren't producers the one investing in the movie. Why are they getting paid then, How does this work?
Edit: Other expenses like travel etc are also covered by the company which adds another 1M$ approx [ex: 41.23]
MNight - 7.2M$ + 0.3M$ + 3M$
Sam Mercer - 850k$
Scott Rudin - 3M$
Aren't producers the one investing in the movie. Why are they getting paid then, How does this work?
Edit: Other expenses like travel etc are also covered by the company which adds another 1M$ approx [ex: 41.23]
Producers aren't usually investors. Executive producers have more to do with investing, but not all executive producers invest (some recruit investors, or do other unrelated things). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_producer, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_producer
Producer and executive producer are completely differet roles despite similar sounding names.
Executive producer is a credit for someone who have helped secure funding. Sometimes high-profile actors may have an executive producer credit.
Producer is like project manager for the movie.
Executive producer is a credit for someone who have helped secure funding. Sometimes high-profile actors may have an executive producer credit.
Producer is like project manager for the movie.
AFAIK the executive producers gather funding and the producers actually make the movie.
I'm pretty sure the studio is putting up the money for the movie. This seems to be the production budget and does not include whatever his profit participation was.
Executive producers are investors.
Line producers are managers
Producers are ceos or presidents.
Line producers are managers
Producers are ceos or presidents.
In reality, these lines are a lot blurrier. Executive producers usually are investors, but they're not necessarily the primary investors. Definitionally, they're responsible for the financing of the film. Producers on the other hand, are, in theory responsible for managing expenditure of the investment (making the film), very much like a CEO/President as you describe.
Not necessarily are producers involved in any budgeting. My First Wife and I were producers on a film that was made from a stage script of her. Our role as producers gave us vetoes on screenplay changes and gave us a hand in the production, plus royalties, but we had no hand in securing the budget or spending it.
Yeah, hence the "in theory". In practice, titles and roles are often weird on film sets. Don't even get me started on "associate producers"...
I would have thought producer is akin to a board of directors, and director is akin to CEO.
The director is responsible for what ends up on the screen, but not for ensuring the crew gets food.
The director is the person who actually crafts the movie. They don't necessarily have anything to do with managing the money. Sometimes you have producer-directors, but it's like a restaurant that is owned by the chef.
The original title "The Woods" is down in the footer. Apparently it was changed during production to avoid a clash with another film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Village_(2004_film)#Produc...
The original title is, in fact, the very first thing in the document. Twice!
It was this film (The Woods, 2006): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380066/
...which was actually a rather cool movie! Anything with Bruce Campbell and Patricia Clarkson piques my interest.
...which was actually a rather cool movie! Anything with Bruce Campbell and Patricia Clarkson piques my interest.
A surprising tidbit: Key make-up and hair each made 72.5k, but there was a make-up and hair designer, who made 105k.
Is it surprising? It’s the same for costumes, sets, visual effects, and many other creative aspects of the production: there’s a lead designer / supervisor who is in charge of the overall look and concept, and then individual artists who implement the look.
Yes, I don't know why I was surprised about make-up in particular. I guess it shows my biases.
Make-up and hair seem quite critical to the atmosphere and look of a movie like The Village which is set in an ambiguous time and place. I think this was probably an interesting project for the make-up designer, and IMO he/she deserved the $105k fee.
It’s also the movie industry so this might be their only major gig for the year, making up the bulk of their annual salary.
Right. Working in Hollywood is gig work. Some years you get lucky, other years you don't. Pay reflects that.
Photocopier rental $20k!
I'd assume it is an office copier that can produce lots of copies of scripts, receipts, invoices, signs for the sets etc. they might need all through the day. And by renting, if it breaks down they get an immediate replacement from the rental company (at zero cost) I guess. So don't need to worry about repair downtime.
Interesting to see that Shyamalan was paid $300K to write, $200K to direct, and $3M to produce the movie.
And 7.2m for the story rights, the first line item.
Am I reading this right that M. Night got over 10M (and possibly the most out of anyone) because of the 7.5M story rights/writing on top of the 3M for directing?
The auteur theory at work.
Whoops, somehow I misread that as $7,200. Don't tell the "idea guys" about this!
I wonder if those fees are based on a "fixed fees" schedule (these ones above, not the script one)
I'm assuming it was as Director that he made most of his back end money.
[deleted]
Is there any context to this document? Was this just leaked or previously leaked, where was it originally posted, etc?
I remember these sheets (or the same type artifact) in a newstand magazine fifteen years ago or so; I read it in Wired, Esquire or some similar publication, iirc.
Doesn’t help much, but one clue is WordPress shows the pdf was uploaded “/2012/10/“
Based on that I conjecture that it was going to be included in this post:
https://wlmager.com/why-i-havent-used-crowdfunding-to-pay-fo...
For all blog posts, use this link:
https://wlmager.com/?s=a
https://wlmager.com/why-i-havent-used-crowdfunding-to-pay-fo...
For all blog posts, use this link:
https://wlmager.com/?s=a
Found it!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/hollywood-n... (Feb 27, 2006)
And they do have budget documents for other films
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/hollywood-n... (Feb 27, 2006)
And they do have budget documents for other films
Don't see a related post on the blog pages https://wlmager.com/author/wlmager/page/3/
It's interesting that according to wikipedia its budget was $60M.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Village_(2004_film)#Produc...
This breakdown is about $71M, and it doesn't even account for reshoots in 2004 ~april. Which one is the more accurate? Are all publicly reported budgets this different?
Or is there something in this report that is not counted there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Village_(2004_film)#Produc...
This breakdown is about $71M, and it doesn't even account for reshoots in 2004 ~april. Which one is the more accurate? Are all publicly reported budgets this different?
Or is there something in this report that is not counted there?
I think the public "budget" number is best considered as part of the film's publicity. It might reflect reality, it might not. Some films exaggerate their production budgets to make them seem like good value to buyers, some understate them for "plucky outsider" cred.
A few things to note: this isn't the budget that Disney ended up having. This doesn't include Prints & Advertising. I'm assuming the picture also had a state tax credit for filming in NY and Penn. So the overall budget would probably be 10-15 million dollars less than itemized. It also looks like N.Night had a 3 picture deal at Disney.
[deleted]
[Spoiler Alert]
I was at a "special invite." I remember this movie well because many of India's Bollywood whos-who were there. When the film ended, I came out and kept thinking, I wish the movie ended before the revelation, stayed on the cliffhanger, and didn't expose that the Village was "staged."
The ending made me feel like, "Duh! Was it all for nothing?"
I was at a "special invite." I remember this movie well because many of India's Bollywood whos-who were there. When the film ended, I came out and kept thinking, I wish the movie ended before the revelation, stayed on the cliffhanger, and didn't expose that the Village was "staged."
The ending made me feel like, "Duh! Was it all for nothing?"
I remember guessing the twist almost immediately because the whole plot was a blatant rip-off of a book I had just read in school.
This is the book: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_Out_of_Time_(novel)
This is the book: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_Out_of_Time_(novel)
Weird thing is that Piers Anthony wrote a children’s science fiction book called “Race against time” with a similar theme.
No, I loved the ending and then thinking back through the whole movie and remember how I just assumed it was in the seventeenth century or whatever. The “it was all for nothing” in an isolated compound in the modern world made the movie for me.
Same. I absolutely loved how the reveal retroactively revised the whole story.
I liked it too. There's a bit near the start where one of the characters makes some comment with slightly awkward-sounding wording; I forget what, precisely, but it was exactly the sort of thing you'd expect from a modern English speaker fluffing an attempt to stay in character as a Victorian or whatever. They even sounded a bit like they were half-realising this as they were saying it.
I put it down to a mistake that they didn't have time to fix. But then, given the ending, I realised it must have been deliberate.
I put it down to a mistake that they didn't have time to fix. But then, given the ending, I realised it must have been deliberate.
I don't know if that would have helped. I figured out the twist long before its revelation, and I think the movie would have made even less sense without some kind of explanation of the characters' strange behaviour. I came out of it thinking "I guess some names can get anything funded", since it seemed like an obviously bad story, but with more hindsight "obviously bad story" is not a problem for a film project if it makes money (just a problem for the audience), and in 2004 Shyamalan's name on a movie was guaranteed to make money, so the investors had no need to care about story.
Putting [spoilers alert] at the end is pointless
We've moved it to the beginning now. Thanks!
I'm so sorry to those pissed off about the spoilers. I was under the impression that for movies, it is like "about a week-ish" before hinting on spolers, and about "couple of days" for TV episodes!
Let me make it up to you. If you haven't seen it, there is a TV series based off George RR Martin's work, Game of Thrones[1].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones
Edit: Huh! I can't add even a subtle hint of a joke, even on the weekends? :-(
Let me make it up to you. If you haven't seen it, there is a TV series based off George RR Martin's work, Game of Thrones[1].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones
Edit: Huh! I can't add even a subtle hint of a joke, even on the weekends? :-(
Spoilers! Please
Thanks for spoiling the end.
The movie has been out for 21 years now. It's not a spoiler, you're just being reminded how much you've been passed by.
Sometimes new people are added to the world and it can take a while to catch up, though.
Those people probably shouldn't click on a discussion thread about a movie they haven't seen.
The harder you try to think up rational justifications for being inconsiderate, the more you prove how there are none.
Sometimes you just want to talk about stories, though. We can't embargo them forever.
If I visit the Wikipedia page of a film I haven't seen, it's my own fault if I get spoiled. Same difference here.
That is true so I hope you you never mention anything about "blowing up the death star" or you might spoil that as well.
That one's not really a spoiler. The heroes set out to do that to win, and it's obviously the type of movie where the heroes win. What's less certain is how exactly they'll get there.
> it's obviously the type of movie where the heroes win
How would I know that if I haven’t seen it
How would I know that if I haven’t seen it
Watch enough movies and you'll know that certain things don't test well with audiences.
Is a young girl in peril? Don't worry, nothing will happen to her, the audiences won't like it.
Have we been focused on one guy for the first 20 minutes? He definitely won't die, at least until the end. And he will achieve something great regardless; it won't all be for nothing.
Did they show a gun in some scene? That's important for later; some guy called Chekhov wants it back.
Once you see the boundaries in modern storytelling, it definitely makes things rather predictable.
If you want to see a film that breaks some of the rules, watch Brimstone.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1895315/
Is a young girl in peril? Don't worry, nothing will happen to her, the audiences won't like it.
Have we been focused on one guy for the first 20 minutes? He definitely won't die, at least until the end. And he will achieve something great regardless; it won't all be for nothing.
Did they show a gun in some scene? That's important for later; some guy called Chekhov wants it back.
Once you see the boundaries in modern storytelling, it definitely makes things rather predictable.
If you want to see a film that breaks some of the rules, watch Brimstone.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1895315/
Apologies if this is too much of a spoiler, but you might be a bit surprised by how the film's immediate sequel plays out.
Edit: And considering when it was made and who made it, a happy ending was by no means guaranteed. Compare and contrast with the endings of Silent Running or American Graffiti.
Edit: And considering when it was made and who made it, a happy ending was by no means guaranteed. Compare and contrast with the endings of Silent Running or American Graffiti.
That's partly why the [spoiler] of The Empire Strikes Back is effective, but that movie also has a different tone right from the start (even before that, with the title), and doesn't really tell a complete story but sets up the next sequel to provide resolution and the inevitable heroic victory.
Silent Running is a dystopian setting, so the ending is unsurprising, and American Graffiti is a of genre that often has bad outcomes for some characters as cautionary tales.
Silent Running is a dystopian setting, so the ending is unsurprising, and American Graffiti is a of genre that often has bad outcomes for some characters as cautionary tales.
Really think Luke’s paternal heritage would have been a better example :)
After 1 Generation it's cultural bedrock, nobody yells spoilers when a king Kong climb is refererenced.
I never saw it.
You're being sarcastic but you shouldn't. The plot twist is all there is to the movie, so that reveal saved you 2 hours of your life.
I wonder why no one has tried setting up a village like in the movie? With all the ills of society it seems worth a try.
If they did, we wouldn’t know…
Because then how would you comment on HN all day?
We're currently in it.
Are you from the Towns?
Lots of people have. From Amish to communes to cults.
Pretty fascinating to see how the actor pays don't match what I was expecting, nor how expensive the actual film stock and its processing was (380k).
Do anyone know if there's more of these breakdowns publicly available?
Do anyone know if there's more of these breakdowns publicly available?
10% of the budget was for story rights? the story was the worst part of that movie.
It's a money making project. I assume it would be easy to have the mainstream movies have "better" stories but they are money making not artistic endeavours.
[deleted]
VFX is 250K for 5 shots. Total VFX budget is 500K. And total post production is 10 Mil. Or ~14% of the whole budget. These days I bet it's probably double or triple that.
SPOILER well The Village benefits from the fact that the monsters were in fact just the other characters in rubber masks. Practical effects would have been entirely accurate anyway, no VFX required. I expect that money was mostly spent on color correction and removing phone lines and such.
VFX was Matte shots and wire removal, according to the doc.
And color correction is listed as its own line item (see “DI”).
Shows how much things have changed. These days it would likely be ~14% of the entire budget, not just post. And there would be 1,000 VFX shots.
Firm believer that he stole the entire thing from the book Running Out of Time by Margaret Peterson Haddix.
That heck of a list of 71mil of economic activities. I keep seeing these “fringes” fees, what are these?
looks like "fringes" are what we call in German TV and ad productions "markup".
>Fringes can track the value of benefits or fees that are required above and beyond the raw cost of labor or materials. Fringe benefits could include employment taxes, fees for pension & welfare programs, or daily charges for a given resource. They might also include allowances for holiday or sick leave funds. >Fringes can also be used to track things like sales tax on materials. >Many employment benefits have a limit or cap for how much total compensation an employee can make before the Fringe benefit is cut off in a given project.
via: https://mmb-docs.ep.com/Setup/fringes.html
>Fringes can track the value of benefits or fees that are required above and beyond the raw cost of labor or materials. Fringe benefits could include employment taxes, fees for pension & welfare programs, or daily charges for a given resource. They might also include allowances for holiday or sick leave funds. >Fringes can also be used to track things like sales tax on materials. >Many employment benefits have a limit or cap for how much total compensation an employee can make before the Fringe benefit is cut off in a given project.
via: https://mmb-docs.ep.com/Setup/fringes.html
Mostly taxes on wages paid as a part of making this movies.
FICA - employer part of payroll taxes
FICA/Medi - employer part of Medicare insurance
FUI/SUI - federal/state unemployment insurance
FICA - employer part of payroll taxes
FICA/Medi - employer part of Medicare insurance
FUI/SUI - federal/state unemployment insurance
> Ebert named the film the tenth worst film of 2004 and subsequently put it on his "Most Hated" list.
I dunno, I enjoyed it. I'm a simple man.