Transformer Budget Revisited

A post way back when (too lazy to look up) I guessed the budget for the live action Transformer movie to be at $75 million. Based on this article, that number is nuts and way to low. Apparently $200 million is the new norm for a blockbuster summer film. King Kong is estimated to cost $250 million, X-Men 3 $210 million, and Superman Returns $260 million. Mission Impossible III is estimated to be in the $150 range, something I wouldn't have thought based on what's on the screen (much is probably wasted on Cruise's payday).

How those numbers are compiled is not explained. Typically listed budgets include the cost to make the movie, not the cost to pre-develop a movie or the costs to promote it. Regardless, this indicates that Transformers is going to cost a lot more then one would have guessed at first. I am now thinking the cost of the film is going to fall in the $175 million range, most of it due to the special effects costs.

What would this mean for the film? Well, in part it means that the movie, by necessity of the budget, would have to focus on the human cast as much as possible (within reason). It would also have to focus more on the TFs in alt mode then robot mode. Its cheaper to have a real world yellow car in a scene then a moving CGI robot for instance. I also figure that they will do what they can to minimize the amount of time a TF is on screen with the human cast even if only in the background. I expect they will use the robot to human height ratio to an advantage (just a leg in the back, etc). The more they have to CGI, the higher the costs.

Now this isn't going to mean the movie will suck, it just means they have to be judicious on when to use the Transformers. On the plus side, this means that they can't drop 10 million for a single actor to do a voice or some other idiotic sum of money which at least gives the original voice actors a few percentage points advantage on getting the nods. On the minus...they will want at least a few A-list actors that may help fill seats on opening weekend because of costs. I am of the school that its not the actors but the story that fills seats. Word of mouth (with a healthy help of advertisement) is king. In Hollywood that opinion seems to be in the minority regardless of the last 2 plus years proving otherwise in the lack of power that an A or even B lister has.

Another minus is that Bay can continue his streak of pretending he is a sensitive artist by focusing too much the lives of his characters to the detriment of the story such as in Pearl Harbor, The Island, Armageddon and a few others. I think the only time he got the ratio right was The Rock. Its a hard balance to walk in action flicks, and its not one he or his editors have been navigating with success.

Hopefully though, I am once again off my rocker on most of this cause to be proved wrong would mean the film gets rave reviews, lots of repeat seats, the original actors for key characters, and the birth of a franchise.