Wow - Howard's character is arguably more important to the story than Phoenix's. Was he that big of a draw back then to be able to demand so much more pay? Well - he had probably been in "Gladiator" just prior, so I guess he was a hot commodity. It looks like William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Adrien Brody, Brendan Gleeson all got paid pretty well. The movie made money despite not finding favor with critics.
> Ebert named the film the tenth worst film of 2004 and subsequently put it on his "Most Hated" list.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's one of my favorite movies. I love movies or books that get me thinking "what the hell is going on" until in the end there's a twist where it now all makes sense.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Readit News
> 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.
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.
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.
But I’ve read and watched a lot of thrillers so they tend to become obvious after a while.
Edit: Also worth noting that her father is Ron Howard so she probably didn't need the money.
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)
Dead Comment
And in some large film unions, you need to pass a test just to get into the department, let alone run a generator.
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.
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.
Another movie like this is "Big Fish"
Edit: Apparently there's a leaked budget for The Interview out there. https://www.scribd.com/document/352522776/The-Interview-Budg...
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]
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.
Line producers are managers
Producers are ceos or presidents.
...which was actually a rather cool movie! Anything with Bruce Campbell and Patricia Clarkson piques my interest.