Box Office : Predict Infinity War's budget

$250 mil?


I am the Alpha and the Omoxus The Omoxus and the Omega

Usually we have some idea of the budget because of the UK tax credit and they seem to be shooting a lot in the UK, but this time they shoot part 1 and part 2 of the avengers movie at the same time, and not in order.

I'm not sure individual movie will have a clear individual budget that we will be able to know.

But Feige, Favreau, James Gunn the Russos, and that cast list:

http://www.imdb.com/board/14154756/fullcredits/

Smulders, Johansson, Cumberbatch, Pratt, Larson, Olsen, Diesel, Saldana, Hemsworth, Evans, RDJ, Cooper, Renner, Rudd, Brolin, Bautista, Del Toro, Ruffalo, Wong,

Will cost a fortune, both movie together should cost over 400 million pound, now if the exchange rate stay low, that could be small 500 million US for both, so around your 250 mil. But lot of expense are in US, like all those salary above.

As a reference Ultron budget was confortably over 208 million pound (around 340 million US at the time) :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/disney-handed-record-31m-tax-credit-for-filming-avengers-in-uk-9783561.html
According to the accounts, Disney has so far spent £208.1m on making Avengers 2,

That was a large amount of time before the release.

So anything below 350 million US for Infinity War's part 1 would be good imo, that is still cheaper than Pirate after all and much safer to do a billion at the BO.

Filming both avengers 3 and 4 at the same time will give some economies of scale (for example I doubt the actors are getting 2X what they got for Age of Ultron, probably a smaller raise than double), so my guess is:

Take Ultron's budget times 1.5-1.8 = about 500-600 million

Take off a somewhat smaller percentage in tax incentives (because the various locations have caps on what they give), subtract 70-110 million = 430-490

And then divide by 2 = 215-245 for each movie.

Apparently filming back-to-back rarely saves on the budget. The unions have this pretty much sewn up i.e. if you get two films out of an actor's work you pay for two films. There might be some economy in not having to rebuild sets but I doubt there is a huge saving in that regard. The biggest advantage to filming back-to-back, especially with these ensemble films, is that co-ordinating schedules can be a nightmare i.e. it is a logistical benefit not a financial one.

According to Trevor the track record to save money with shooting 2 movie is not that good, but I would think it must provide some relief, by having a long post production time for SFX for the part 2 at least. I would think the big reason is scheduling (or for young adult type of production not having the cast age too much if they do not in the story)

The Pound exchange rate will be really fun for Disney thought for sure.

---

for example I doubt the actors are getting 2X what they got for Age of Ultron

---

But some of those must be getting out of the very original contract by now and need more and more convincing to do them, and some of the actors have signed now that it is a really big deal to what must be much larger contract the what the first contract Evans type of deal got, salary must be raising, there is a release to low pay on movie that do over a billion and rack up merchandise.

As for not getting double because of the nature of the shoot, that could be possible (that is a total unknown to me), but it create such a long continuous schedule and commitment, and actor must lock a long away reshoot schedule of the part 2, that I could imagine them asking for as much. They still need to do 2 complete world junket.

---

As for not getting double because of the nature of the shoot, that could be possible (that is a total unknown to me), but it create such a long continuous schedule and commitment, and actor must lock a long away reshoot schedule of the part 2, that I could imagine them asking for as much.

---

That's pretty much been a no-no since the lawsuits when the Salkinds decided that rather than release their 1973 version of The Three Musketeers as a four hour roadshow they'd release it as two two-hour movies, The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers. Since then there's been a Salkind clause in nearly all contracts (though Harry Alan Towers was a far more prolific offender) that ensures you get paid for two movies if a film is released in two parts and you're in both parts, though that usually excludes six hour European movies like Bertolucci's 1900 that gave theaters the option of showing over the course of one or two days.

Of course, if you're guaranteeing an actor who's not in demand two movies worth of work you can work out a package deal, but good luck trying that with Robert "I don't need to make another movie as long as I live" Downey Jr. Often you'll end up paying more: Keanu certainly got more for the Matrix sequels than he did for the original.

The advantage, as you note, is scheduling and logistics rather than cost savings. You can potentially save some money by not making the second film two years later when prices have gone up, but that's usually swallowed by the additional costs: back-to-back filming on this scale is incredibly physically gruelling (one reason MGM's plan to film another Bond film back-to-back with SPECTRE was nipped in the bud) and has a high turnover of crew and casual labor.



"Security - release the badgers."

Interesting from you and Logan and Cornetto, as always. I didn't know any of that and was making assumptions based on Marvel's notorious stinginess with their talent outside of Robert Downey jr.
I have read that FX costs significantly more when it's hurried, so like Cornetto said that's probably the main savings with avengers 4 having a longer post production period.

It's really only on cheapies and exploitation movies that the economies of scale make sense, and aside from Cannon producing back-to-back King Solomon's Mines and Missing in Action films, it was usually two different films sharing locations, crew and sometimes cast.

The 'recupero,' as the Italian film industry dubbed it, was one of the most forlornly hopeful forms of film-making: offsetting part of the cost of the film you wanted to make by filming another on the cheap back-to-back with as many of the same cast, crew and locations as possible in the hope that at least one of them would be a hit even though just about the only recorded case of that ever happening was the two picture deal that saw Jolly Films spend most of their money and resources on Pistols Don't Argue while whatever was left over went to a no-budget oater shot on some of the same locations with some of the same crew, a cheap American TV western sidekick from Rawhide in the lead who only got the part because he was $1000 cheaper than Henry Silva and Sergio Leone directing that was originally going to be called Il Magnifico Straniero. Hammer tried something similar in an attempt to make their Bray Studios more cost-efficient with Plague of the Zombies and The Reptile (both directed by John Gilling with most of the same crew and several of the same supporting actors on the same sets) and Dracula Prince of Darkness and Rasputin The Mad Monk (different directors but same principal cast and sets), releasing them far enough apart to think that people wouldn't notice the similarities (they did). The films went slightly overbudget and they ended up closing the studios.

With big A-list sequels, the economies of scale are often too minor and, in the case of the Back to the Future sequels, the stories and locales often so completely different that there's very little you can reuse from one film to the next.


"Security - release the badgers."

Significantly more than it'll look like on screen.

Proud member of the Pro-film Anti-digital Society (PFADS).

Around 250 million seams plausible.


Godzilla for the Win!

$10 million.

Probably 600 million dollars in total.

Last Films seen:
La La Land(2016)- 8/10
Split(2017)- 8/10