This film seemed very no frills to me. I was surprised that it would cost 17 million. In terms of combining a competent story with austerity it deserves a lot of credit. What accounts for the relatively high price tag here?
Producing : Writer Trying to Understand "Quiet Place" Cost of Production 17 million by B.V Jottsonne
Other topics in Producing:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
Most articles I've read talk about how successful and effective a film it is, and... it was made on such a modest budget, only 17 million. It's already made at the box office, what, 3-4 times its budget? Or probably much more? Price tag amount depends on one's perspective, I guess. Lol! ;) Oh, motion-capture graphics, special effects, set design, and sound design certainly can be costly too.
"Quiet Place" Box Office Mojo stats:
Domestic: $148,173,301 63.0%
+ Foreign: $87,200,000 37.0%
= Worldwide: $235,373,301
13.9 times the budget.
2 people like this
Seventeen million is modest by Hollywood standards. For Platinum Dunes, the production company, it's actually in a mid range for the types of films they do.
The Purge: $3MM
Ouija: $5MM
Friday the 13th(2009): $19MM
Nightmare on Elmstreet (2010): $35MM
And then the Transformers and Mutant Turtles Franchises at the high end in the $100+ range.
I think the Purge and Ouija are good examples of a base budget for a film with relatively unknown actors and an unproven film IP. $3 to $5 million. Anything above that in a similar genre and production value is usually attributable to Above the Line costs.
Crew and production costs for a basic, contemporary movie should run around $2.5MM ($100,000 a day for 25 days of shooting). Director, Writer and Actors should run around $500,000 as a base. If you want bigger names that adds to the cost.
If I was to guess at where the money went, I would say base production costs of Quiet Place were probably in the $6MM range, with distant location, good crew, and a 36 day shoot schedule. Then it is has a lot of Producers, including Michael Bay and a Production Company Fee, probably an agency packaging fee. That probably jacked it up another $5MM. So cast, director, script, post, music and VFX probably accounted for the remaining $6MM (which isn't a lot considered the two leads, who certainly worked below their quotes to get it made).
The money goes fast. :)
As above and location costs, star salaries, producers, music, shooting days. Likewise seemed a bit high to me as well.
I read his question as he's asking why it should cost that much, not if that's the norm. My observation is that the "Hollywood" film industry has way out paced itself by allowing expenses to spiral into the Stratosphere. I think this nothing but good news for the small time indie producer who is constrained to 4, 5 or rarely 6 figure expense bracket.
Filmmaking is very much a labor intensive process so most of what's inflating "Hollywood's" costs is labor - a single A-list actor can easily cost up in the 7 figure tier. The business men in "Hollywood" recognize this; so now we're seeing "big" film production moving to other states & countries. Indies rejoice - they can't compete with you. And let's be honest here; how many small time indie filmmakers could live happily on $1 or $2M?
2 people like this
There is nothing unusual about a $10,000,000 or $25,000,000 film being made, being simple and being considered "low budget." It is, by Hollywood standards. Look at the cast, the writers and producer credits. Everyone gets paid something up front, for starters. It's shot under the budget-appropriate IA and SAG contracts as well. A $1 million truly indie film may very likely not ever break even for it's investors... there is no way to recoup that without being part of the global marketing machine that is Hollywood. Indies can NEVER compete with studio films, unless they get picked up by a studio. A low budget $17M studio film is usually financed among a slate of films that have distribution in place and spread risk. Totally different business model.
1 person likes this
There are plateaus of ROI that are common for film budgets.
In the Indie, ultra low world $300,000 is about the cap for how much you should spend with an expectation of breaking even. And that's if you get one recognizable name to get distributors to look at it. Low budget horror, Christmas movies and film fest darlings fall into the range.
The next range is $2MM-$3MM for solid little horror films from an established company with a distribution deal already in place. Not much other than horror or action geared for international survives in this realm.
Then there's the Mid Range that was going extinct, but is coming back in the age of digital distribution. This is the $10MM -$35MM budget. They're mostly established IP's with decent casts and pretty clear demographics or Oscar-bait movies with great actors willing to take a pay cut for a great role or to work on a worthy project.
Budgets tend to jump at this point and the competition gets fierce. Studios only want tent pole franchises and big stars traditionally and supply/demand takes over. There are only so many Cineplex screens out there and these films need coordinated launch/release efforts. This is the glamorous world everybody aspires to and only a few achieve.
Good feedback on this thread, but have any of you actually READ the script for “A Quiet Place?” It’s fucking brilliant. THAT, along with it getting in the hands of Krasinski, this leading to Michael Bay, who KNOWS how to deliver a movie under budget, are the reasons the movie was made for what it was and thusly why it did so well at the box office. There is no MAGIC REASON why certain movies hit and others don’t. It comes down to talent. Period. Every time At least I’m the lower budget/Indy world.